Mers Winram for Fife the Laird of Dun for Angus and Merns Willock for Glasgow and Carsewell for Argyle and the Isles These are all who are reckoned up by Knox and Spotswood And Spotswood adds With this small Number was the Plantation of the Church at first undertaken And can we think tho all these had been Presbyters duly ordained That they were the only men who carried on the Scottish Reformation Farther yet 4. Petrie tells us that the First General Assembly which was holden in Dec. 1560 consisted of 44 persons and I find exactly 44 Names Recorded in my Mss. Extract of the Acts of the General Assembly's as the Names of the Members of that Assembly But of all these 44 there were not above Nine at most who were called Ministers so that at least more than Thirty were but Lay-Brethren according to the then way of Reckoning probably they were generally such if you speak in the Dialect and reckon by the Measures of the Catholick Church in all Ages In short 5. There is nothing more evident to any who considers the Histories of these times than that they were generally Laymen who promoted our Violent and Disordered Reformation as Spotswood justly calls it And 't is Reasonable to think the Sense of this was One Argument which prevailed with our Reformers to Declare against the Antient Catholick and Apostolick Ceremony of Imposition of Hands in Ordinations as is to be seen in the 4 th Head of the First Book of Discipline and as is generally acknowledged Thus I think I have sufficiently deduced Matters as to my First Enquiry It had been easy to have insisted longer on it but I had no inclination for it considering that there is a kind of Piety in Dispatch when the longer one insists on a subject of this Nature he must still the more Expose the Failures of our Reformation and the Weaknesses of our Reformers Proceed we now to The Second Enquiry Whether our Scottish Reformers whatever their Characters were were of the present Presbyterian principles Whether they were for the Divine Institution of Parity and the Vnlawfulness of Prelacy amongst the Pastors of the Church THis Enquiry if I mistake not is pretty far in the interests of the main Question For the Article as I am apt to take it aims at this That our Reformation was carried on with such a Dislike to Prelacy or the Superiority of any Office in the Church above Presbyters as made Prelacy or such a Superiority ever since a great and insupportable Grievance and Trouble to this Nation c. But if this is the Sense of the Article what else is it Than that our Reformers were Presbyterian But whether or not This was truly intended as 't is truly very hard to know what was intended in the Article This is Certain this Enquiry is material and pertinent And if it faces not the Article Directly Undoubâ—edly iâ— doth it by fair Consequence 'T is as certain our Presbyterian Brethren use with confidence enough to assert that our Reformers were of their Principles This is One of the Main Arguments by which they endeavour on all occasions to influence the Populace and Gain Proselytes to their Party And therefore I shall endeavour to go as near to the bottom of this Matter as I can and set it in its due Light And I hope It shall appear to be competently Done to all who shall attentively and impartially weigh the following Deduction And I. Let it be considered That while our Reformation was on the Wheel and for some years after its publick Establishment there was no such Controversy agitated in Europe as this concerning The Divine Institution of Parity or Imparity amongst the Pastors of the Church The Popes pretended universal Headship was Called in Question indeed And Called in Question it was run down with all imaginable Reason some years before the Settlement of our Reformation That Controversie was One of the First which were accurately ventilated by the Patrons of Reformation And it was very natural that it should have been so considering what stress was laid upon it by the Pontificians 'T is likewise true That the Corruptions of the Ecclesiastical Estate were Enquired into in most Provinces every where where the Truth began to Dawn and the Reformation was Encouraged And it was not to be imagined but in such Scrutinies Bishops would be taken notice of for their general Defection from the Antient Rules and Measures of the Episcopal Office and the vast Dissimilitude between them and those of the same Order in the primitive times both as to the Discharge of their Trust and their Way of Living And who doubts but in these things the Popish Bishops were too generally culpable 'T is farther true That some Countries when they reformed Religion and separated from the Church of Rome did set up New Models of Government in the Churches they erected as they thought their civil Constitutions could best bear them And having once set them up what wonder if they did what they could to justify them and maintain their Lawfulness Thus for instance Mr. Calvin erected a Model of the Democratical Size at Geneva because that State had then cast it self into a Democracy And the Protestants in France partly for Conveniency partly in imitation of Calvins Platform fell upon a method of governing their Churches without Bishops And so it fared with some other Churches as in Switzerland c. while in the mean time other Churches thought it enough for them to Reform the Doctrine and Worship without altering the Ancient form of Government But then 'T is as evident as any thing in History that all this while from the first Dawnings of the Reformation I mean till some years after the publick Establishment of our Reformation That there was no such Controversie insisted on by Protestants either in their Debates with the Papists or with one another as that about the Divine and Vnalterable Institution of parity or imparity amongst the Pastors of the Church And I dare confidently challenge my Presbyterian Brethren to produce any One Protestant Confession of Faith for their side of the Question Nay more I dare challenge them to instance in any One Protestant Divine of Note who in these times maintained their side of the Controversy who maintain'd the Vnlawfulness of Imparity amongst Christian Pastors before Theodore Beza did it if he did it Sure I am They cannot without the greatest impudence pretend that Mr. Calvin the only Transmarine Divine I can find consulted by our Reformers about matters relating to our Reformation was of their Principles For whoso shall be pleased to consuâ—t his Commentaries on the New Testament particularly on 1 Cor. 11.2 Or some Chapters in the beginning of his 4 th Book of Institutions Or his Book about the Necessity of Reforming the Church Or his Epistles particularly his Epistle directed to the Protector of England dated Octob. 22. 1548. Or to Cranmer Archbishop of
a Kingly Priesthood That therefore any man skill'd in the Word of God and true Faith of Christ had power given him of God But he that was unlearned and not exercised in the word of God nor constant in the Faith whatever his state or order was had no power to bind or to loose seeing he wanted the word of God which is the Instrument of binding and loosing And 'T is probable This was a prevailing opinion in those times from the too common practice of it But hath this any relation to the Divine Right of Parity Doth it not strick equally against both Orders that of Presbyters as well as that of Bishops Is it not plainly to set up the Ius Laicorum Sacerdotale in opposition to both And who can say but this Opinion might have been in a Breast which entertain'd no scruples about the Lawfulness of Episcopacy No doubt it might and no doubt it was actually so with this same holy Martyr For he was not only willing that the then Bishops tho Popish should be his Judges He not only gave them still their Titles and payed them all the Respect that was Due to their Order and Character homages infinitely scandalous with our modern Presbyterians as is to be observed thro all the steps of his Tryal But in his last Exhortation to the People at the very Stake he bespake them thus I beseech you Brethren and Sisters to exhort your Prelates to the Learning of the Word of God that they may be ashamed to do evil and learn to do good and if they will not convert themselves from their wicked Errors there shall hastily come upon them the wrath of God which they shall not eschew Here you see the Dying Martyr was earnest that the Popish Prelates might quit their Errors not their Prelations What is there here that looks like a Divine-Right-of-Parity-man Indeed he was none of that Principle He had had his Principles from England as we shall find hereafter Only one thing more about him here He was not for Club law Reformations He was neither for violent Possessions of Churches not for propagating the Cause by Rabbles if we may belieâ—â— Knox's accounts of him Others again of our Reformers Declaim'd loudly against the Bishops of these times and condemn'd them severely and perhaps too deservedly But what is this to the Order Doth every man condemn the Office who condemns this or that Officer If so then sure the Order of Presbyters was as bad as the Order of Bishops in the judgment of our Reformers For instance hear Walter Milne in his Exhortation to the People at his Martyrdom Therefore as ye would escape Eternal Death be no more seduced with the Lies of whom of Bishops only No but of the whole collection of the Priests Abbots Monks Friars Priors Bishops and the rest of the Sect of Antichrist But 't is needless to adduce the Testimonies of private persons we have the publick Deeds of the Protestants of these times very clear to this purpose Thus They directed a Declaration of their minds to the Popish Clergy under this Title To the Generation of Antichrist the pestilent Prelates and their Shavelings within Scotland c. And were not Presbyters of the number of these Shavelings And what can be more part to this purpose than the Supplication which was presented by our Reformers to the Parliament Anno 1560 There they tell the Estates That they cannot cease to crave of their Honours the Redress of such Enormities as manifestly are and of a long time have been committed by the Place-holders of the Ministery and others of the Clergy They offer evidently to prove that in all the Rabble of the Clergy there is not one Lawful Minister And therefore they crave that they may be decerned unworthy of Honour Authority Charge or Care in the Church of God c. Whoso pleases may see more of their publick Representations to this effect in Knox's History Now what can be more clear than that all this work was against Presbyters as much as against Bishops and by consequence against Both Offices or against neither as indeed it was against neither as I shall afterwards demonstrate from this same Petition In short nothing can be more evident to ane attentive Reader than that in all these Efforts of the Zeal of our Reformers against the Popish Bishops it was only the Popery and not at all the Prelacy that was aim'd at They never condemned Bishops as Bishops but only as Popish Bishops I have insisted the more largely on these things because I know People are apt to mistake in this matter who do not sufficiently attend to the Dialect of these times Especially when they read the History which is commonly called Iohn Knox's I return now to my purpose and repeat my assertion viz. That our Presbyterian Brethren cannot adduce so much as one of our Martyrs our Confessors or those who had any remarkable hand in the Establishment of our Reformation in the year 1560 who was of the Modern Presbyterian Principles Three Authors have indeed attempted it The Author of the Pamphlet entituled The Course of Conformity Mr. Calderwood and Mr. Petrie The Author of the Course of Conformity in his 4 th Chap. reckons up a full Dozen of such as he says gave Evident and full Testimony against Bishoprie as he calls it But he has not recorded the Testimony of any One except Knox. All the rest he proves to have been enemies to Prelacy by this one Argument They preached zealously against Popery And Bishoprie is one of the greatest Errors and Corruptions of that He neither offers at proving his Subsumption nor at adducing any other Topick And has he not proven the point demonstratively Besides some of his Dozen were not heard of till several years after the Reformation and so cannot be brought in Barr against my Challenge Further He has had the ill Luck to name such for the half of his Dozen as would have laught heartily to have heard themselves cited as Patrons of the Divine Right of Parity Particularly Mr. Willock who lived and died Superintendent of Glasgow Mr. Pont who died Bishop of Cathnes Mr. Row who was one of the Three who stood for the Lawfulness of Episcopacy when it was first called in question at the Assembly in August 1575 Mr. Craig whom Calderwood himself censures severely for his forwardness to have the Brethren subscrive That they should give obedience to their Ordinary's and charges with making bitter invectives against the sincerer sort as he calls the Non-Subscribers I may add Mr. Knox as shall be made appear by and by But I have taken but too much notice of The Course of Conformity which is truly one of the weakest Pamphlets was ever seen in print And if that part of it which is against Episcopacy was written by Mr. Iames Melvil as Calderwood affirms It is a Demonstration That whatever his Zeal was
Office of Superintendents whereunto they were forced as they thought by necessity c. And in his Breviate of the first book of Discipline he offers at a Reason why it was so They make a Difference at this time among Ministers some to be Superintendents some to be ordinary Ministers not because Superintendents were of divine institution as ane Order to be observed perpetually in the Kirk but because they were forced only AT THIS TIME to make the Difference lest if all Ministers should be appointed to make continual Residence in several places when there was so great Rarity of Preachers the greatest part of the Realm should be destitute of the preaching of the word And G. R. in his first Vindication of the Church of Scotland printed at Edenburgh 1691. in answer to the first of the ten Questions following Calderwood exactly as indeed he doth all alongst and it seems he has never read another of our Historians so that he had some reason to call him THE HISTORIAN ibid. delivers it thus 'T is true the Protestant Church of Scotland did set up Superintendents but this was truly and declared so to be from the Force of Necessity and design'd only for that present Exigency of the Church c. And more pointedly in his true Representation of Presbyterian Government printed at Edenburgh 1690. prop. 18. where he lays it down as ane undoubted truth That Superintendency was only established throught necessity when a qualified Minister could scarcely be had in a Province c. And Petrie seems to aim at the same way of Reasoning Now 1. Supposing all this true what ground have they gained by it Do they not fairly acknowledge that the Prelacy of Superintendents was established at the Reformation And is not that all I am concerned for For the Question is not whither Superintendency was design'd to be perpetual or temporary but whither it was a Prelacy And if it was a Prelacy the Church of Scotland was not then govern'd by Ministers acting in parity The Perpetuity or Temporariness of it doth not affect its nature If it was a Prelacy at all it was as really a Prelacy tho it had lasted but for a Day as it had been tho it had lasted till the Day of Iudgment Just as our Presbyterian Brethren were as really Addressers to K. I. by addressing once as they should have been tho they had continued addressing to him till this very minute This alone in all conscience might be enough for discussing this Plea Yet that I may not offend the Party by seeming to think so meanly of this mighty argument I shall insist a little longer and consider 2. If they have any sufficient Fund in the Records of these times for this pretence And 3. What Force or Solidity is in the reason insisted on to make this pretence seem plausible As to the first viz. Whither there is any sufficient Fund in the Records of these times for this pretence All I have observed insisted on for this is only one phrase in the fifth Head of the First Book of Discipline AT THIS TIME Take the whole period as it is in Petrie for he censures Spotswood for curtailing it As Petrie has it it runs thus If the Ministers whom God hath endued with his singular Graces among us should be appointed to several places there to make their continual Residence the greatest part of the Realm should be destitute of all Doctrine which should not only be the occasion of great Murmur but also dangerous to the Salvation of many and therefore we have thought it a thing expedient AT THIS TIME That from the whole number of Godly and Learned Men now presently in this Realm be selected Ten or Twelve for in so many Provinces we have divided the whole to whom Charge and Commandment should be given to plant and erect Kirks to set order and appoint Ministers to the Countries that shall be appointed to their care where none are now This is the whole foundation of the Plea for the Temporariness of Superintendency but if I mistake not the true Gloss of this period will amount to no more than this That because there were then so few men qualified for the Office of Superintendency tho Ten or Twelve were by far too small a number for the whole Kingdom yet at that time they thought it expedient to establish no more And tho when the Church should be sufficiently provided with Ministers it would be highly reasonable that the Superintendents should have places appointed them for their continual Residence yet in that juncture it was necessary that they should be constantly travelling thro their Districts to preach and plant Churches c. That the period will bear this Gloss is obvious to any who considers it impartially And that this and not the Presbyterian is the true Gloss I hope may competently appear if these things be considered 1. It is notorious that the Compilers of that First Book of Discipline were generally to their dying day of Prelatical Principles They were six as Knox tells us Mr. Iohn Winrame who died Superintendent of Strathern Iohn Spotswood who was many years a Superintendent and a constant Enemy to parity as appears from his Sons account of him Iohn Willock who died Superintendent of the West Iohn Dowglas who died Archbishop of St. Andrews Iohn Row who was one of the three that defended the Lawfulness of Episcopacy at the Conference appointed by the General Assembly 1575 and Iohn Knox of whom we have said enough already Now I ask is it credible that these men all so much for Prelacy all their Lives without any constraint on them As 't is certain there was none should while digesting a Model of Policy have been only for a Prelacy that was to be laid aside within God knows how short a time so soon as the Parish Churches could be planted with Ministers I know nothing can be said here unless it be that Knox was not so prelatical as the rest and he would have it so and the rest have yielded But there 's no ground for this For 2. Even Knox himself if he was the Author of the History which bears his Name amongst our Presbyterian Brethren assigns a quite other reason than the then Necessities of the Church for the Establishment of Superintendency Superintendents and Overseers were nominated says he that all things in the Church might be carried with order and well A Reason which as it held since the Apostles times will continue to hold so long as the Church continues And is it not told again in that same History That at the Admission of Spotswood to the Superintendency of Lothian Iohn Knox in his Sermon asserted the Necessity of Superintendents or Overseers as well as Ministers The Necessity I say and not the bare Expediency in that juncture Further now that I have Knox on the Stage I shall repeat over again a Testimony of his which I
believe he would institute a Model of Government for his Church which could not answer the ends of its institution And is it not plain that Parity cannot answer the ends for which Church Government was instituted if the Church can be reduced to that State that the Governors thereof forced by Necessity must lay it aside and for a time establish a Prelacy Besides What strange Divinity is it to maintain that Parity is of divine Institution and yet may be laid aside in Cases of Necessity 'T is true G. R. in his True Representation of Presbyterian Government cited before is bold to publish to the world such Divinity But let him talk what he will of the Case of Necessity the Force of Necessity the Law of Necessity let him put it in as many Languages as he pleases as well as he hath done in Latin telling that Necessitas quicquid coegit defendit tho I must confess I have seen few Authors more unhappy at Latin And all that shall never perswade me ought never perswade any Christian that any Necessity can oblige Christians to forsake far less to cross Christs institutions for if it can oblige to do so in one Case why not in all Cases Indeed to talk of crossing Christs institutions when forced to it by the Laws of Necessity what is it else than to open a Door to Gnosticism to Infidelity to Apostacy to all imaginable kinds of Antichristian Perfidy and Villany But enough of this at present That which I am concerned for is only this that being it was so very obvious and easy for our Reformers to have cast the very first Scheme of the Government of the Church according to the Rules and Exigencies of Parity if they had believed the divine and indispensable institution of it and being that they did it not we have all the reason in the world to believe that they believed no such principle For my part I am so far from thinking it reasonable that Prelacy should be only needful where there is a scarcity of men qualified to be Ministers that on the contrary I do profess I am of opinion that Prelacy seems to be every whit as needful and expedient if not more supposing we had it in our power to cut and carve as we say on Christs institutions where there are many as where there are few Ministers Sure I am Experience hath taught so and teaches so daily and as sure I am it can with great reason be accounted for why it should be so but if it is so I think it is only help at a dead Lift as we say to say that Superintendency was established at our Reformation only because of the Scarcity of men qualified to be Ministers And so I proceed to our Brethrens next Plea which is SECONDLY That Superintendency was not the same with Episcopacy Calderwood assigns seven or eight differences between Superintendents and Bishops and his faithful Disciple G. R. in his First Vindication in answer to the first Question resumes the same Plea and insists mostly on the same Differences Calderwood reckons thus 1. In the Election Examination and Admission of Ministers the Superintendents were bound to the Order prescribed in the 4 th Head of the First Book of Discipline which is far different from the Order observed by Prelates 2. Superintendents kept not the bounds nor the limits of the old Diocesses 3. Superintendents might not remain above twenty days in any place till they had passed through the whole bounds must preach at least thrice in the week must stay no longer in the Chief Town of their Charge than three or four Months at most but must re-enter in Visitation of the rest of the Kirks in their bounds Bishops think preaching the least of their Charge 4. The Election Examination and Admission of the Superintendent is set down far different from the Election Examination and Admission of Bishops now adays c. 5. Superintendents were admitted without other Ceremonies than sharp Examination c. To the Inauguration of a Bishop is required the Metropolitans Consecrations 6. There were no degrees of superior and inferior provincial and general Superintendents It is otherwise in the Hierarchy of the Prelates c. I have set down these six huge Differences without ever offering to consider them particularly are they not huge Differences Behold them examine them carefully is not each of them as essential and specifick as another Think not courteous Reader it was Malice or Ill-will to Episcopacy made our Author muster up these Differences These make but a small number if he had been acted by passion or vicious Byass if his Malice had been vigorous and earnest to discharge it self that way he could have easily reckoned six hundred every whit as considerable Differences He might have told them that Bishops wore Black Hats and Superintendents Blue Bonnets that Bishops wore Silks and Superintendents Tartan that Bishops wore Gowns and Cassocks and Superintendents Trews and slasht Doublets and God knows how many such differences he might have readily collected And if he had adduced such notable differences as these he had done every way as Philosophically and as like a good Difference-maker But in the mean time what is all this to Parity or Imparity amongst the Governors of the Church Do these differences he has adduced distinguish between Bishops and Superintendents as to preheminence of power and the essentials of Prelacy Do they prove that Superintendents had no Prerogative no Authority no Jurisdiction over Parish Ministers I have treated him thus coursly because I know no other way of treatment Authors deserve who will needs speak Nonsense rather than speak nothing 'T is true indeed One difference he has mentioned which seems something material and therefore I shall endeavor to account for it with some more seriousness It is that by the Constitution as we have it both in the First Book of Discipline and the Form and Order of electing Superintendents Superintendents were made obnoxious to the Tryal and Censures of the Ministers within their own Diocesses This I acknowledge to be true and I acknowledge further that herein there was a considerable difference between them and Bishops as Bishops stood eminenced above Presbyters in the primitive times and as they ought to stand eminenced above them in all well constituted Churches But then I have these things to say 1. I shall not scruple to acknowledge that herein our Reformers were in the wrong and that this was a great Error in the Constitution I do avowedly profess I don't think my self bound to justify every thing that was done by our Reformers If that falls to any mans share if falls to theirs who established this Article in the Claim of Right which gave occasion to this whole Enquiry That our Reformers herein were in the wrong I say I make no scruple to acknowledge and I think it cannot but be obvious to all who have spent but a few thoughts about matters of
the year 1560 till the year 1616. Our Presbyterian Brethren may be ready to reject its Authority if it Militates against them I give My Reader therefore this brief account of it It was transcribed in the year 1638. when the National Covenant was in a flourishing state For I find at the end of it the Transcriber's Name and his Designation written with the same hand by which the whole M S. is written And he says He began to transcribe upon the 15th day of Ianuary 1638. and compleated his work on the 23d of April that same year He was such a Reader as we have commonly in Scotland in Country Parishes It is not to be imagined it was transcribed then for serving the Interests of Episcopacy For as Petrie and the Presbyterians generally affirm The Prelates and Prelatists dreaded nothing more in those days than that the Old Registers of the Kirk should come abroad And it was about that time that Mr. Petrie got his Copy from which he published so many Acts of our Old General Assemblies Nor is it to be doubted but that as several Copies then were so particularly that which I have perused was transcribed for the Ends of the Good Old Cause This I am sure of the Covenant as required then to be subscribed by the Green Tables is set down at full length in the Manuscript Besides The Stile and Language testify that there is no Reason to doubt That the Acts of Assemblies which it contains have been transcribed word for word at first from the Authentick Records And if Calderwood's or Petrie's Accounts of these Acts deserve any Credit My M S. cannot be rejected for it hath all they have published and for the most part in the same Terms except where these Authors have altered the Language sometimes to make it more fashionable and intelligible sometimes to serve their Cause and the Concerns of their Party It hath Chasms also and Defects where they say Leaves have been torn from the Original Registers And I have not adduced many Acts from it which either one or both these Authors have not likewise mentioned in their Histories Calderwood has indeed concealed very many having intended it seems to publish nothing but what made for him tho I think even in that his Iudgment hath not sufficiently kept pace with his Inclinations Nay His Supplement which he hath subjoyn'd to his History as well as the History it self is lame by his own Acknowledgment For these are the very first words of it I have in the preceeding History only inserted such Acts Articles and Answers to Questions as belonged to the Scope of the History and Form of Church Government Some few excepted touching Corruptions in the Worship of God or the Office and Calling of Ministers But because there are other Acts and Articles necessary to be known I have SELECTED such as are of greatest Vse passing by such as were TEMPORARY or concerned only TEMPORARY OFFICES c. Here is a clear Confession that he has not given us all the Acts of Assemblies Nay that he has not given all such as concerned Temporary Offices and amongst these we shall find him in the following Sheets more confidently than warrantably reckoning Superintendency and the Episcopacy which was agreed to at Leith Anno 1572. I have mentioned these things that the World may see it cannot be reasonable for our Presbyterian Brethren to insist on either Calderwood's Authority or Ingenuity against my Mss. How ingenuous or impartial he has been you may have opportunity to guess before you have got through the ensuing Papers Petrie hath indeed given us a great many more of the Acts of General Assemblies than Calderwood hath done as may appear to any who attends to the Margin of my Book But he also had the Good Cause to serve and therefore has corrupted some things and concealed other things as I have made appear However he has the far greater part of what I have transcribed from the Mss. Spotswood hath fewer than either of the two Presbyterian Historians yet some he hath which I find also in the MS. and which they have both omitted In short I have taken but very few from it which are not to be found in some One or More of these Historians Neither have I adduced so much as One from it nor is One in it which is not highly agreeable to the State and Circumstances of the Church and the Genius of the times for which it mentions them So that Upon the whole matter I see no reason to doubt of its being a faithful Transcript And I think I may justly say of it as Optatus said of another MS. upon the like occasion Vetustas Membranarum testimonium perhibet c. optat Milev lib. 1. f. 7. edit Paris 1569 It hath all the Marks of Antiquity and Integrity that it pretends to and there 's nothing about it that renders it suspicious The other Book which I said required some farther consideration is The History of the Reformation of the Church of Scotland containing five Books c. Commmonly attributed to Iohn Knox by our Presbyterian Brethren That which I have to say about it is chiefly That Mr. Knox was not the Author of it A. B. Spotswood hath proven this by Demonstration in his History pag. 267. his Demonstration is That the Author whoever he was talking of one of our Martyrs remitteth the Reader for a farther Declaration of his Sufferings to the Acts and Monuments of Mr. Fox which came not to light till some twelve years after Knox's Death Mr. Patrick Hamilton was the Martyr and the Reference is to be seen pag. 4. of that History I am now considering Besides this I have observed a great many more infallible proofs that Knox was not the Author I shall only instance in some 3 or 4. Thus Pag. 447. The Author having set down a Copy of the Letter sent by the Church of Scotland to the Church of England of which more by and by Tells how the English Nonconformists wrote to Beza and Beza to Grindal Bishop of London which Letter of Beza's to Grindal he says is the Eight in order amongst Beza's Epistles And in that same page he mentions another of Beza's Letters to Grindal calling it the Twelfth in Number Now 't is certain Beza's Epistles were not published till the year 1573. i. e. after Knox's Death It may be observed also that he adds farther in that same page That The sincerer sort of the Ministery in England had not yet assaulted the Iurisdiction and Church Government which they did not till the year 1572. at which time they published their first and second Admonitions to the Parliament but only had excepted against Superstitious Apparel and some other faults in the Service Book From which besides that 't is Evident Knox could not be the Author we may Learn from the Authors Confession whoever he was That the Controversies about Parity and Imparity c. were not so early in
be the Vindicator of their Kirk If they can imploy any civil discreet ingenuous person to write for them I shall be heartily satisfied and for his Encouragement I do promise if he falls to my share I shall treat him suitably Nay After all if even G. R. himself will lay aside such Qualities as I have demonstrated adhere to him if he will undertake to write with that Gravity and Civility that Charity and Modesty that Honesty and Ingenuity which may be thought to become One of his Age and Character I can as yet admit of him for my Adversary for I think the Party cannot assign me a weaker one And I do hereby promise him ane Equitable Meeting FINIS ADVERTISEMENT THis Book was designed for the Press December 1693. The Article That Prelacy and the Superiority of any Office in the Church above Presbyters is and hath been a great and insupportable Grievance and Trouble to this Nation and contrary to the Inclinations of the Generality of the people ever since the Reformation they having Reformed from Popery by Presbyters And therefore ought to be Abolished THis Article was Established in our Claim of Right April 11 1689. By vertue of this Article Prelacy was actually Abolished by Act of Parliament Iuly 22. 1689. Upon the foot of this Article Presbyterian Government was Established Iune 7. Anno 1690. This Act Establishing Presbyterian Government was Ratified in the whole Heads Articles and Clauses thereof Iune 12. 1693. It is indisputable then That This Article is the Great Foundation of that Great Alteration which hath been made in the Government of the Church of Scotland since the Beginning of the Late Revolution Whether therefore This is a Solid or a Sandy Foundation cannot but be deem'd a Material Question And I think I shall bid fair for the Determination of this Question if I can give clear and distinct Satisfaction to these following Enquiries I. Whether the Church of Scotland was Reform'd solely by persons cloath'd with the Character of Presbyters II. Whether our Scottish Reformers whatever their Characters were were of the present Presbyterian Principles Whether they were for the Divine institution of Parity and the unlawfulness of Prelacy amongst the Pastors of the Church III. Whether Prelacy and the superiority of any Office in the Church above Presbyters was a great and insupportable Grievance and trouble to this Nation and contrary to the inclinations of the generality of the people ever since the Reformation IV. Whether it was Such when this Article was Established in the Claim of Right V. Whether supposing the premisses in the Article were True They would be of sufficient Force to infer the Conclusion viz. That Prelacy and the Superiority of any Office in the Church ought to be abolished The Determination of the main Question I say may competently result from a perspicuous discussion of these five Enquiries And therefore I shall attempt it as fairly as I can leaving to the world to judge equitably of my performance And without further prefacing I come to The First Enquiry Whether the Church of Scotland was Reformed solely by persons cloath'd with the Character of Presbyters IF the Framers of the Article meant that it was in these words They having Reformed from Popery by Presbyters I think I am pretty sure they meant amiss For there is nothing more obvious to one who reads and compares our Histories than That persons standing in other stations and cloath'd with other Characters had a very great hand and were very considerable Instruments in carrying on our Reformation Particularly 1. There were Prelates who concurred in that work as well as Presbyters Knox says there were present in the Parliament holden in August 1560. which Parliament gave the first National Establishment to our Reformation The Bishop of Galloway the Abbots of Lundoris Culross St. Colmes-inih Coldingham Saint Mary-isle and the Subprior of St. Andrews with diverse others And of all these he says That they had Renounced Papistrie and openly professed Jesus Christ. Spotswood reckons up no fewer than Eight of the Spiritual Estate all Protestants chosen at that time to be Lords of the Articles Namely the Bishops of Galloway and Argyle the Prior of St. Andrews the Abbots of Aberbrothoik Kilwinning Lundors Newbottle and Culross Lay these two Accounts together and you shall have at least a Round Dozen of Reforming Prelates 'T is True Spotswood says The Popish Prelates stormed mightily at such a Nomination for the Articles alledging that some of them were meer Laicks But what if it was so I am apt to think our Presbyterian Brethren will not be fond to make much advantage of this I am apt to think they will not say That all those whom they allow to have been Reforming Presbyters were Duely and Canonically Ordained That they were solemnly seperated for the Ministery by such as had Commission and Power to Separate them and in such Manner as had Universally obtained from the Apostles times in the Separation of Presbyters for their holy Function The plain truth is 2. Our Reformation was principally carried on by such as neither Did nor Could pretend to be Canonically promoted to Holy Orders Knox himself tells us that when the Reformation began to make its more publick Advances which was in the Year 1558. there was a great Scarcety of Preachers At that time says he we had no publick Ministers of the word Only did certain Zealous Men among whom were the Laird of Dun David Forress Mr. Robert Lockhart Mr. Robert Hamilton William Harlaw and others Exhort their Brethren according to the Gifts and Graces granted to them But shortly after did God stir up his Servant Paul Methven c. Here we have but a very Diminutive account of them as to Number And such an Account as in its very Air and Countenance seems to own they were generally but Lay-Brethren They were but Zealous Men not Canonically ordained Presbyters And if we may believe Lesly Paul Methven was by Occupation a Baker and William Harlaw a Taylor The Laird of Dun that same very year was Provost of Montrose and as such sent to France as one representing not the First or the Spiritual but the Third Estate of Parliament the Burrows to attend at the Celebration of the Queens Marriage with the Dauphine of France He was indeed a Gentleman of good Esteem and Quality and he was afterwards as Superintendent but it no where appears that he was ever Received into Holy Orders Nay 3. After the pacification at Leith which was concluded in Iuly 1560 when the Ministers were distributed amongst the several Towns we find but a very small Number of them Iohn Knox was appointed for Edenburgh Christopher Goodman for St. Andrews Adam Herriot for Aberdeen Iohn Row for Perth William Chrystison for Dundee David Ferguson for Dunfermline Paul Methven for Iedburgh and Mr. David Lindesay for Leith Beside these Five were nominated to be Superintendents Spotswood for Lothian and
Canterbury To the Bishop of London To Ithavius Bishop of Vladislavia dated Decem. 1. An. 1558 Or his Resolution of that Case if a Bishop or Curate joyn himself to the Church c. Or lastly his Epistle to the King of Poland wherein he tells him That It was Nothing but pride and ambition that introduced the Popes Supremacy That the Ancient Church had indeed her Patriarchs and Primates for the Expedition of Discipline and the Preservation of Unity As if in the Kingdom of Poland one Archbishop should have the precedency of the rest of the Bishops not that he might Tyrannize over them but for Orders sake and for Cherishing Unity amongst his Collegues and Brethren And next to him there should be Provincial or City Bishops for keeping all things orderly in the Church Nature teaching says he that from every Colledge One should be chosen who should have the chief Management of affairs But 'T is another thing for one Man as the Pope doth to arrogate that to himself which exceeds all humane abilities namely The Power of governing the whole Universe Whoso shall perpend these writings of Mr. Calvins I say shall find that he was very far from maintaining the Vnlawfulness of Prelacy Nay farther yet I challenge my Presbyterian Brethren upon their ingenuity to tell me weither it was not a good many years after 1560. that Beza himself the true founder of their Sect condemn'd Prelacy if he did condemn it I say if he did maintain the Necessity of Parity and condemn'd Prelacy For however he may seem upon several occasions not only to give the preference to Presbyterian Government and represent it as the most eligible But to endeavour to found it on Scripture And represent Episcopacy as an humane invention yet I have not observed that any where 〈◊〉 calls it absolutely or simply Unlawful On the contrary he says in express terms That it is Tolerable when it is duely Bounded when the pure Canons of the Ancient Church are kept in vigour to keep it within its proper Limits Sure I am he was not for separating from a Church as our modern Presbyterians are upon the account of its Governments being Episcopal as might be made appear fully from his Letters so that whatever greater Degrees of Dislike to Episcopacy he may have discovered beyond his Predecessor Mr. Calvin yet it is not unreasonable to think that his great aim was no more than to justify the Constitution of the Church he lived in and recommend it as a pattern to other Churches The Scope of this whole Consideration is this That if what I have asserted is true if there was no such Controversie agitated all the time our Church was a Reforming nor for a good many years after Then we have one fair Presumption that our Reformers were not Presbyterians It is not likely that they were for the Indispensibility of Parity that being the side of a Question which in these times was not begun to be tossed And this Presumption will appear yet more ponderous if II. It be considered that we have no reason to believe that our Reformers had any peculiar Motives or Occasions for adverting to the pretended Evils of Prelacy or any peculiar interests to determine them for Parity beyond other Churches or that they were more sharp-sighted to espy faults in Prelacy or had opportunities or inclinations to search more diligently or enquire more narrowly into these matters than other Reformers The truth is The Controversies about Doctrine and Worship were the great ones which took up the thoughts of our Reformers and imployed their most serious Applications This is obvious to any who considers the accounts we have of them so very obvious that G. R. himself fairly confesses it in his First Vind. ad Quest. 1. where he tells us That the Errors and Idolatry of that way meaning Popery were so gross and of such immediate hazard to the Souls of People That it is no wonder that our Reformers minded these First and Mainly and thought it a great step to get these Removed so that they took some more time to consult about the Reforming of the Government of the Church From which 't is plain he confesses the Reformation of the Churches Government was not the subject of their Main Thinking which indeed is very true and cannot but appear to be so to any who considers what a Lame Scheme was then drest up by them But however this was 't is enough to my present purpose That our Reformers were more imployed in reforming the Doctrine and Worship than in thinking about Church Governments From which together with the former presumption which was that our present Controversies were not begun to be agitated in these times one of two things must follow unavoidably viz. either 1. That if they were for the Divine and indispensible Right of Parity 't is no great matter their Authority is not much to be valued in a Question about which they had thought so Little Or 2. That it is to be presumed they were not for the Divine Right of Parity That being the side of a Question which was not then agitated in any Protestant Church and as Little in Scotland as any To be ingenuous I think both inferences good tho 't is only the Last I am concerned for at present But this is not all For III. So far as my opportunities would allow me I have had a special eye on all our Reformers as I found them in our Histories I have noticed their sentiments about Church Government as carefully as I could And I have not found so much as one amongst them who hath either directly or indirectly asserted the Divine and Vnalterable Right of Parity By our Reformers here I mean such as were either 1. Martyrs or 2. Confessors for the Reformed Religion before it had the countenance of Civil Authority or 3. Such as lived when it was publickly established and had a hand in bringing it to that perfection Such I think and such only deserved the Name of our Reformers And here again I dare be bold to challenge my Presbyterian Brethren to adduce clear and plain proof that so much as any one man of the whole Number of our Reformers was of the present principles of the party Some of them indeed seem to have laid no great stress on Holy Orders and to have been of opinion That personal Gifts and Graces were a sufficient Call to any man to preach the Gospel and undertake the pastoral Office Thus that excellent person Mr. George Wishart who in most things seems to have juster notions of the Gospel Spirit than most of our other Reformers when at his Tryal he was charged with this Article That every man was a Priest and that the Pope had no more power than another man answered to this purpose That St. Iohn saith of all Christians He hath made us Kings and Priests And St. Peter He hath made us
calls them 50000 out of their Benefices besides a vast sum which might arise out of the confiscated Estates of Hereticks 50000 Crowns was a good round summ in those days in Scotland Further How were they alarm'd what fears were they under what shapes did they turn themselves in what tricks did they play when the Match betwixt Edward and Mary spoken of before was in Agitation The Cardinal forged a Will in the Kings Name nominating himself the principal of four Conjunct Regents for managing the Government during the Queen's Minority intending thereby to secure the Popish interests and prevent the coming of the Nobility from England who he knew would lay out themselves with all their Might to oppose him being his Enemies upon the account of Religion and advance the Designs of England This not succeeding for the forgery was manifest His next Care was that all the Popish Party should tumultuate bawl and clamour confound and disturb the Parliament all they could which indeed was done so successfully that nothing could be done to purpose till he was committed to Custody Neither did this put an end to these practices of the Party but so soon as the Parliament having concluded the Match was over and he set at Liberty with the Queen Dowagers advice who was all over French and Papist He convenes the Clergy represents to them the impossibility of their standing the certain Ruine of the Catholick Religion every thing that could be frightful to them unless that Confederacy with England were broken obliges them therefore to tax themselves and raise great Sums of Money for Bribing some of the Nobility that were not proof against its Charms and Beauties And to use all their Rhetorick with others to the same purpose And lastly it was concluded in that Religious Meeting That the Match and Alliance should be preacht against from the Pulpits and that all possible pains should be taken to excite the Populace to Tumults and Rabbles and treat the English Ambassador with all affronting Tricks and Rudenesses In short the Faction never gave over till they had cajol'd the weak Regent into ane Abjuration of Protestancy as was told before and reconciled him to the French which then in Scotland was all one with the Popish Interest Nay His Holiness himself again interrested himself in this juncture as Lesly tells us sending Petrus Franciscus Contarenus Patriarch of Venice his Legate into Scotland to treat with the Regent and the Nobility in the Popes Name and promise them large assistances against the English if they would break the Contract of Marriage betwixt Edward and Mary which had so fatal ane aspect towards the Catholick Religion By this Taste 't is easy to discern how much the Popish Party were perswaded of the great influence England had on Scotland in order to a Reformation of Religion And laying all together that hath been said 't is as easy to perceive they wanted not reason for such a perswasion Having thus given a brief Deduction of the State of our Reformation in King Henry's time and made it apparent that it was much encouraged and quickened by English Influences then I think I need not insist much on the succeeding Reigns Briefly then 7. As Edward the Sixth had the same reasons for interesting himself in our Scottish affairs which his Father Henry had before him so we find his Counsels were suited accordingly No sooner was Henry dead and Somerset warm'd in his Protectoral Chair than the Demands about the Match were renewed And being rejected by the Popish Party here who had our weak Regent at their Beck and were then the governing Party the Matter ended in a Bloody War Somerset raised a great Army and entered Scotland But before it came to fighting he sent a Letter to the Scots written in such ane obliging stile and containing so kind and so fair so equitable propositions That the Regent advis'd by some Papists about him thought fit not to publish it to his Army but to give out that it tended to quite contrary purposes than it really contained That it contain'd Threats that the English were come to carry off the Queen by force and Ruine and Enslave the Nation c. Dreading no doubt that if he had dealt candidly and shewed the Letter to such men of interest in the Nation as were there it would have taken so with them that they would have laid aside thoughts of Fighting Indeed this was no groundless jealousie the matter was above-board For as Buchanan tells us In the next Convention of Estates which was holden shortly after that fatal Battel of Pinkie those who were for the Reformation being of the same Religion with England were zealous for the English Alliance and against sending the Queen into France and that they were the Papists only who were for sending her thither 8. When Edward died and his Sister Mary ascended the Throne a heavy Cloud indeed did hang over both Nations and threatned a dreadful storm to the Reformation of Religion Mary according to her surly humour fell to downright Persecution in England And our Q. Dowager having shouldered out Arran and possest herself of the Scottish Regency in her subtle way was as zealous to maintain the Superstitions of Popery using less Cruelty indeed than Mary but more policy and to the same purposes And now the purgation of Christianity seem'd to be brought to a lamentable stand in both Kingdoms and the hopes of those to be quite dasht who were breathing for the profession of that Holy Religion in its purity Yet God in his kind providence did otherwise dispose of things and made that a means to advance Religion amongst us which men thought should have utterly extinguisht it For some of those who fled from Mary's persecution in England taking their Refuge into this Kingdom did not only help to keep the light which had begun to shine but made the Sun to break up more clear than before as Spotswood hath it from Knox. For then came into Scotland William Harlaw Iohn Willock Iohn Knox c. of whom more hereafter Thus we were still deriving more light and heat from England 9. Mary died and Elizabeth succeeded in November 1588. our Queen was then in France It was morally impossible to recover her thence The English influences which in Henry and Edwards time had cherished our Reformation except so far as God sent us Harlaw Willock and Knox by his special providence as I told just now were quite cut off all the time of Mary's Government Our Reformers therefore to make the best of a bad hand were earnest to be amongst the foremost Courtiers with the Queen Regent They were ready to serve her design with all possible frankness particularly they were amongst the most forward for carrying on the Match with the Dauphine of France and voted chearfully that he should have the Matrimonial Crown conferred upon him after the solemnization of the Marriage In
of the Common Prayers of the Church of England or the Genevian Liturgy For we no where read of a Third ever pretended to have been used in those times in Scotland Now that it was not the Liturgy of Geneva is plain for besides that it is utterly incredible that there could have been so many Copies of the Genevian Form in the vulgar Language then in Scotland as might serve so many Parish Churches Nay that 't is highly probable there was not so much as one Besides this I say in the Genevian Form which was afterwards used in Scotland there is no Order for no footstep of the observation of other Holy-days besides Sunday Neither is there any Order in it for Reading of Lessons of the Old and New Testament except in the Treatise of Fasting which was not compiled till the year 1565. There indeed Lessons are appointed such and such Psalms and such and such Histories in the Old but not so much as one Tittle of the New Testament In all the rest of the Book a deep Silence about Lessons than which there cannot be a clearer Demonstration that the Book appointed to be used in December 1557 was not that of Geneva Indeed 2. None of our Presbyterian Historians neither Petrie nor Calderwood have the confidence to pretend nay to insinuate the possibility of its being the Common Order of Geneva which 't is very probable they would have done if they had had the smallest hopes of making it feasible On the contrary Calderwood seems fairly to acknowledge that it was the English Liturgy but then this acknowledgement lies at such a distance from the year 1557. that no doubt he thought himself pretty secure that few Readers would reflect upon it as ane acknowledgment he doth not make it till he comes to the year 1623 when he had occasion to tell how the use of the English Liturgy was brought into the New Colledge of St. Andrews Take it in his own words Upon the 15 th of January Master Robert Howie Principal of the New College of St. Andrews Doctor Wedderburn and Doctor Melvin were directed by a Letter from Doctor Young in the Kings Name to use the English Liturgy Morning and Evening in the New College where all the Students were present at Morning and Evening Prayers Which was presently put in execution notwithstanding they wanted the warrant of any General Assembly or of any CONTINVED PRACTICE OF THE FORM in time by-past since the Reformation Where you see he lays the stress of his Argument against it on its nor having had a continued Practice since the Reformation which is a clear concession that at the Reformation it was in practice tho that practice was not continued But whither he acknowledged this or not is no great matter we have sufficient Evidence for the point in hand without it For 3. Buchanan's Testimony which was adduced before about the Scots subscriving to the Worship and Rites of the Church of England is unexceptionable And yet it is not all For 4. The Order as you see it appointed by the Lords of the Congregation Decem. 3d 1557. is That the Book there authorised be used in all Churches from that very date but we find by the First Book of Discipline That the Order of Geneva was only coming in to be used then in some of the Churches i. e. 1560. And it had nothing like a public Establishment till the General Assembly holden at Edenburgh Dec. 25 1652. For then and not till then It was concluded that ane Vniform Order should be kept in the Ministration of the Sacraments Solemnization of Marriages and Burial of the Dead according to the Kirk of Geneva So it is in the Mss. and so Petrie hath it But Nature works again with Calderwood For he has no more but this It was ordained that ane Vniform Order be kept in the Ministration of the Sacraments according to the Book of Geneva Omitting Marriage and the Burial of the Dead Marriage I believe to bear the other Company for the Burial of the Dead was the Dead Flee Why The Book of Geneva allowed of Funeral Sermons as he himself acknowledgeth A mighty Superstition in the opinion of Prerbyterians so that it would have been offensive to the sincerer sort as he commonly calls those of his own Gang and inconsistent with the Exigences of the Good Cause to have let the world know that A General Assembly had ratified the Order of that Book about Burials and thereby had justified the Superstition of Funeral Sermons Nay 5. It seems this Act of the General Assembly Decem. 1562. has not been strong enough for turning out the English Liturgy and introducing the form of Geneva For if we may believe Calderwood himself The General Assembly holden at Edenburgh Decem. 25. 1564. found themselves concerned to make another Act ordaining Every Minister Exhorter and Reader to have one of the Psalm books lately printed at Edenburgh and use the Order contained therein in Prayers Marriage and Administration of the Sacraments Where observe further that Prayers not mentioned in the Act 1562. are now put in from which it may be probably conjectured that as much as Knox was against the English Liturgy he found many difficulties to get it laid aside so many that it has not only been used by some few or many I cannot tell in the Ministration of the Sacraments c. after the Act 1562. But the Clergy have not found themselves obliged to forbear the use of it in the publick prayers so that it was needful in this Assembly 1564 to make a New Act restricting them both as to Prayers and other Ministrations to the Order of Geneva And if this holds we have the English Liturgy at least seven Years in continued practice in Scotland But it is enough for my main purpose that it was once universally in use which I think cannot be denied by any who impartially considers what hath been said And now 6. May not I adduce one Testimony more 'T is true it is of a latter date But it is very plain and positive and what I have adduced already is security enough for its Credibility It is the Testimony of the Compilers of our Scottish Liturgy which made the great Stir in the year 1637. And was made one of the main pretences for the first Eruptions of that execrable Rebellion which ensued The Compilers of that Liturgy I say in their Preface to it tell us That it was then known that diverse years after the Reformation we had no other Order for Common Prayer but the English Liturgy A Third Principle wherein our Reformers agreed with the Church of England and which stands in direct contradiction to the Principles of our Presbyterians is that they own'd the Church had a great Dependance on the State That it belong'd to the Civil Magistrate to reform the Church That People might appeal from the Church to the Civil Magistrate c. I
am not now to enter into the Controversie concerning the Dependence or Independence of the Church upon the State that falls not within the compass of my present Undertaking Neither will I say that our Presbyterians are in the wrong as to the true substantial Matter agitated in that Controversie All I am concerned for at present is that in these times those of the Church of England own'd a great Dependence of the Church upon the State and that our Reformers agreed with them in that Principle and I think I may make short work of it For That that was the Principle of the Church of England in these times I think no man can readily deny who knows any thing about her at and a good many years after her Reformation All my business is to shew that our Reformers were of that same Principle And I think that shall be easily made to appear For As to the Civil Magistrates power to reform the Church what can be more clear than the Petition presented to the Queen Regent in November 1558 There our Reformers tell her Majesty that Knowing no Order placed in this Realm but her Majesty and her grave Council set to amend as well the Disorder Ecclesiastical as the Defaults in the Temporal Regiment they do most humbly prostrate themselves before her Feet asking Iustice and her Gracious Help against such as falsely traduced and accused them as Hereticks and Schismaticks c. In which Address we have these two things very clear and evident 1. That they own'd that the Civil Magistrate had power to amend Ecclesiastical Disorders as well as Temporal 2. That in consequence of this they applied to the Civil Magistrate for protection against the pursuits of the Church And in their Protestation given in to the Parliament about that same time They most humbly beseech the sacred Authority to think of them as faithful and obedient Subjects and take them into its Protection keeping that Indifferency which becometh Gods Lieutenants to use towards those who in his Name do call for Defence against Cruel Oppressors c. Meaning the then Church-men Indeed None clearer for this than Knox himself as is to be seen fully in his Appellation from the cruel and most unjust Sentence pronounced against him by the False Bishops and Clergy of Scotland as he himself names it For there He lays down and endeavours to prove this Assertion That it is lawful to Gods prophets and to Preachers of Christ Iesus to appeal from the Sentence and Iudgment of the visible Church to the Knowledge of the temporal Magistrate who by Gods Law is bound to hear their Causes and to defend them from Tyranny And in that same Appellation he largerly asserts and maintains the Dependance of the Church upon the State The Ordering and Reformation of Religion with the instruction of Subjects he says doth appertain especially to the Civil Magistrate For why Moses had great power in the Matters of Religion God revealed nothing particularly to Aaron the Church-man but commanded him to depend from the Mouth of Moses the Civil Magistrate Moses was impowered to separate Aaron and his Sons for the Priesthood Aaron and his Sons were subject to Moses Moses was so far preferred to Aaron that the one commanded the other obeyed The Kings of Israel were commanded to read the Book of the Law all the days of their Lives not only for their own private Edification but for the publick preservation of Religion so David Solomon Asa Iehosophat Hezekiah Iosiah understood it and interested themselves in the Matters of the Church accordingly From which it is evident saith he That the Reformation of Religion in all points together with the Punishment of false Teachers doth appertain to the power of the Civil Magistrate For what God required of them his justice must require of others having the like Charge and Authority what he did approve in them he cannot but approve in all others who with like Zeal and Sincerity do enterprize to purge the Lords Temple and Sanctuary Thus Knox I say in that Appellation I do not concern my self with the truth or falshood of his positions neither am I to justify or condemn his Arguments All I am to make of it is to ask my Presbyterian Brethren whither these Principles of Knox's suit well with declining the Civil Magistrate as ane incompetent Iudge in Ecclesiastical matters with refusing to appear before him prima instantia for the tryal of Doctrines preacht in the Pulpit with the famous distinction of the Kings having power about Church matters Cumulative but not Privative c. I am affraid it shall be hard enough to reconcile them I shall only instance in one principle more which seems to have been common to our and the English Reformers but it is one of very weighty consequence and importance to my main design It is Fourthly That Excellent Rule of Reformation viz. That it be done according to the word of God interpreted by the Monuments and Writings of the Primitive Church That antient solid approven Rule That Rule so much commended by that excellent Writer Vincentius Lirinensis That Rule which the common sense of mankind cannot but justify when it is considered soberly and seriously without partiality or prejudice A Rule indeed which had the Reformers of the several Churches followed unitedly and conscientiously in those times when the Churches in the Western parts of Europe were a Reforming we had not had so many different Faiths so many different Modes of Worship so many different Governments and Disciplines as Alas this day divide the Protestant Churches and by consequence weaken the Protestant Interest A Rule which had the pretenders to Reformed Religion in Scotland still stood by we had not possibly had so many horrid Rebellions so many unchristian Divisions so many unaccountable Revolutions both in Church and State as to our sad Experience have in the Result so unhing'd all the Principles of natural justice and honesty and disabled nay eaten out the principles of Christianity amongst us that now we are not disposed so much for any thing as downright Atheism But were our Reformers indeed for this Rule That shall be demonstrated by and by when we shall have occasion to bring it in again as naturally to which opportunity I now refer it in the mean time let us briefly sum up all that hath been hitherto said and try to what it amounts I have I think made it appear that while our Reformation was a carrying on and when it was established Anno 156â— there was no such Controversie agitated in the Churches as that concerning the indispensible necessity of Presbytery and the Vnlawfulness of Prelacy concerning the Divine Right of Parity or the Vnallowableness of imparity amongst the Governors of the Church I have said enough to make it credible that our Scottish Reformers had no peculiar occasions opportunities provocations abilities for falling on that Controversie or determining of it more
were deposable by the Superintendent of the Diocess and the Elders of the Parishes where they were Ministers but of this more hereafter But by that same First Book of Discipline the Superintendent was to be judged by the Ministers and Elders of his whole Province over which he was appointed and if the Ministers and Elders of the Province were negligent in correcting him one or two other Superintendents with their Ministers and Elders were to conveen him providing it were within his own Province or Chief Town and inflict the Censure which his Offence deserved Of the Reasonableness of this afterward 4. There was as remarkable a difference in point of Ordination which in the then Scottish stile was called Admission Private Ministers were to be admitted by their Superintendents as we shall find afterwards But by the First Book of Discipline Head 5. Superintendents were to be admitted by the Superintendents next adjacent with the Ministers of the Province 5. In the case of Translation the General Assembly holden at Edenburgh Decem. 25. 1562. Gives power to every Superintendent within his own bounds in his Synodal Assembly with consent of the most part of the Elders and Ministers of Kirks to translate Ministers from one Kirk to another as they shall consider the Necessity Charging the Minister so translated to obey the Voice and Commandment of the Superintendent But according to the First Book of Discipline Head 5. No Superintendent might be translated at the pleasure or request of any one Province without the Council of the whole Church and that for grave Causes and Considerations 6. A special care was to be taken of his Qualifications and Abilities for such ane important office for thus it is appointed by the First Book of Discipline Head 5. That after the Church shall be established and three years are past no man shall be called to the Office of a Superintendent who hath not two years at least given a proof of his faithful Labours in the Ministry A Caution simply unapplyable to Parish Ministers 7. He had a living provided for him by the First Book of Discipline Head 5. about five times as much yearly as was alotted for any private Minister And it is to be observed that this was in a time when the Popish Bishops still brooked their Benefices But when the Resolution was Anno 1567 to deprive all the Popish Clergy it was agreed to in the General Assembly by the Churchmen on the one hand and the Lords and Barons on the other That Superintendents should succeed in their places as both the Mss. and Spotswood have it expresly 8. Superintendents by vertue of their Office were constant Members of the General Assemblies Therefore the General Assembly holden at Perth Iune 25. 1563. statuted That every Superintendent be present the first day of the Assembly under the pain of 40 sh. to be given to the poor without Remission So it is in the Mss. but Petrie has it barely That they shall conveen on the first day of every Assembly And it seems because that punishment had not sufficient influence on them it was again ordained by the G. Ass. at Edenburgh March 6. 1573. That they shall be present in the Assembly the first day before noon under the pain of losing one half of their stipend for a year c. So both the Mss. and Petrie But as we shall find afterwards such presence of Parish Ministers was not allowed far less necessary 9. It belonged to them to try those who stood Candidates for the Ministery thus 1. B. of Disc. Head 4. Such as take upon them the Office of Preachers who shall not be found qualified therefore by the Superintendent are by him to be placâ—d Readers And again Head 5. No Child nor person within the age of 21 years may be admitted to the Office of a Reader but such must be chosen and admitted by the Superintendent as for their Gravity and Discretion may grace the Function that they are called unto And the Ass. at Edenburgh Dec. 15. 1562. Ordains That Inhibition be made against all such Ministers as have not been presented by the people or a part thereof to thâ— Superintendent and he after Examination and Tryal has not appointed them to their Charges So the Mss. and so Petrie and Spotswood cites another Act of the General Assembly at Edenburgh 1564. to the same purpose 10. As appears by that Act of the Assembly Decem. 25. 1562. just now cited and the 7 Act Parl. 1 Iac. 6. cited before also Superintendents had the power of granting Collations upon presentations And the Assembly at Perth holden in Iune 1563. appoints That when any Benefice chances to vaik or is now vacant that a qualified person be presented to the Superintendent of that Province where the Benefice lyeth and that he being found sufficient be admitted c. So I find it cited by the Author of Episcopacy not abjured in Scotland 11. A Superintendent had power to plant Ministers in Churches where the people were negligent to present timeously and indeed that power devolved much sooner into his hands by the First Book of Discipline Head 4. than it did afterwards into the hands of either Bishop or Presbytery for there it is ordered That if the people be found negligent in electing a Minister the space of forty days the Superintendent with his Counsel may present unto them a man whom they judge apt to feed the flock c. And as he had thus the power of trying and collating Ministers and planting Churches in the case of a Ius Devolutum So 12. He had the power of Ordination which as I said was then called Admission as is evident from the First Book of Discipline cap. 5. and several Acts of Assemblies already cited 13. All Presbyters or Parish Ministers once admitted to Churches were bound to pay Canonical Obedience to their Superintendents Thus in the Assembly at Edenburgh Iune 30. 1562. It was concluded by the whole Ministers assembled that all Ministers should be subject to the Superintendents in all lawful admonitions as is prescribed as well in the Book of Discipline as in the Election of Superintendents So the Mss. And by that aforecited Act of the Assembly at Edenburgh Decem. 25. 1562. Ministers translated from one Church to another are commanded to obey the Voice and Commandment of the Superintendent Indeed it was part of ane Article presented by the Church to the Council May 27. 1561. That ane Act should be made appointing a civil Punishment for such as disobeyed or contemned the Superintendents in their Function 14. He had power to visit all the Churches within his Diocess and in that Visitation they are the words of the First Book of Discipline Head 5. To try the Life Diligence and Behaviour of the Ministers the Order of their Churches the Manners of their People how the Poor are provided and how
Policy and Government Indeed to make Governours subject to the Censures and Sentences of their Subjects what is it else than to subvert Government to confound Relations to sap the Foundations of all Order and politick Establishment It is as King Iames the sixth has it in his Discourse about the true Law of Free Monarchies and I cannot give it better to invert the Order of all Law and Reason to make the commanded command the Commander the judged judge their Iudge and them who are governed to govern their time about their Lord and Governour In short to give a just account of such a Constitution it is very near of Kin to that bantering Question I have sometimes heard proposed to Children or Ideots If you were above me and I above you which of us should be uppermost I add further 2. That as I take it our Reformers put this in the Constitution that they might appear consequential to a principle then espoused and put in practice by them about Civil Government which was that the King was superior to his Subjects in their distributive but inferior to them in their collective Capacity This principle I say in those days was in great Credit Knox had learned it from the Democratians at Geneva his Authority was great and he was very fond of this principle and disseminated it with a singular zeal and confidence Besides our Reformers were then obnoxious to the civil Government the standing Laws were against them and the Soveraigns perswasion in matters of Religion jumpt with the Laws This Principle therefore had it been a good one came to them most seasonably and coming to them in such a nick and withal meeting in them with Scotch Mettal they put it in practice and being put in practice God suffered it to be successful and the success was a new Endearment and so it came to be a Principle of Credit and Reputation Indeed they had been very unthankful to it and inconsequential to boot if they had not adopted it into their Ecclesiastical as well as their Civil Systeme and the Superintendents having had a main hand in reducing it to practice against the Prince could not take it ill if it was made a Law to themselves it was but their own measure This I say I take to be the natural History of this part of the Constitution Nay 3. So fond it seems they were of this principle that they extended it further so far as even to make Ministers accountable to their own Elderships So 't is expresly established by the First Book of Discipline Head 8. The Elders ought also to take heed to the Life Manners Diligence and Study of their Minister And if he be worthy of Admonition they must admonish him if of Correction they must correct him and if he be worthy of Deposition they with the Consent of the Church and Superintendent may depose him Here was a pitch of Democracy which I think our Presbyterian Brethren themselves as self denied as they are would not take with so very kindly And yet I am apt to believe the Compilers of the Book never thought on putting these Elders in a state of parity with their Ministers tho this is a Demonstration that they have not been the greatest Masters at Drawing Schemes of Policy But to let this pass 4. Tho this unpolitical stroke to call it no worse was made part of the Constitution by that Book as I have granted yet I have no where found that ever it was put in practice I have no where found that De Facto a Superintendent was judged by his own Synod whether it was that they behaved so exactly as that they were never censureable or that their Synods had not the insolence to reduce a Constitution so very absurd and unreasonable to practice I shall not be anxious to determine But it seems probable it has been as much if not more upon the latter account than the former for I find Superintendents frequently tried and sometimes censured by General Assemblies and there was reason for it supposing that General Assemblies as then constituted were fit to be the supreme Judicatories of the National Church For there was no reason that Superintendents should have been Popes i. e. absolute and unaccountable so that if I am not mistaken our Brethren raise Dust to little purpose when they make so much noise about the Accountableness of Superintendents to General Assemblies as if that made a difference between them and Bishops For I know no man that makes Bishops unaccountable especially when they are confederated in a National Church But this by the way That which I take notice of is That seeing we find they were so frequently tried by General Assemblies without the least intimation of their being at any time tried by their own Synods it seems reasonable to conclude that it has been thought fit to let that unreasonable Stretch in the first Constitution fall into Dissuetude But however this was I have all safe enough For 5. Such a Constitution infers no such thing as parity amongst the Officers of the Church Those who maintain that the King is inferiour to his Subjects in their Collection are not yet so extravagant as to say he is not superior to every one of them in their Distribution They acknowledge he is Major Singulis and there 's not a person in the Kingdom who will be so unmannerly as to say that he stands upon the same Level with his Soveraign But what needs more These same very Presbyterian Authors who use this Argument even while they use it confess That Superintendents and ordinary Parish Ministers did not act in parity and because they cannot deny it but must confess it whether they will or not they cannot forbear raising all the Dust they can about it that unthinking People may not see clearly that they do confess it And had it not been for this reason I am apt to think the world had never been plagued with such pitiful jangle as such Arguments amount to Neither is the next any better which is 3. That Superintendency was never established by Act of Parliament This is G. R.'s Argument in his learned Answer to the first of the ten Questions for there he tells us That Superintendency was neither brought in nor cast out by Act of Parliament And what then Doth he love it the worse that it was established purely by Ecclesiastical Authority How long since he turn'd â—ond of Parliamentary Establishments I wonder he was not affraid of the Scandal of Erastianism But to the point 'T is true indeed it was not brought in by Act of Parliament but then I think he himself cannot deny that it was countenanced allowed and approven by more than half a Dozen of Acts of Parliaments which if our Author understands any thing either of Law or Logick he must allow to be at least equivalent to a Parliamentary In-bringing I have these Acts in readiness to produce when
Stipends be assigned to them Ane Article visibly levell'd as the former 5. That Doctors may be placed in Vniversities and Stipends granted them whereby not only they who are presently placed may have occasion to be diligent in their Cure but other learned Men may have Occasion to seek places in Colleges Still to the same purposes viz. the finding reasonable Uses for the Patrimony of the Church 6. That his Grace would take a General Order with the poor especially in the Abbeys such as are Aberbrothoick c. Conform to the Agreement at Leith Here not only the Leith-Agreement insisted on but farther pious Vse for the Churches Patrimony 9. That his Grace would cause the Books of the Assignation of the Kirk be delivered to the Clerk of the General Assembly These Books of Assignation as they call them were the Books wherein the Names of the Ministers and their several proportions of the Thirds were Recorded It seems they were earnest to be repossessed of their Thirds seeing the Regent had not kept promise to them But The Eighth Article which by a pardonable inversion I hope I have reserved to the last place is of all the most considerable It is That his Grace would provide Qualified persons for Vacant Bishopricks Let the candid Reader judge now if Episcopacy by the Leith-Articles was forced upon the Church against her Inclinations If it was never approven when Bishops were thus petitioned for by a General Assembly If it be likely that the Assembly in August 1572. protested against it as a Corruption If the Acts of the last Assembly declaring Bishops to have no more power than Superintendents had and making them accountable to the General Assembly proceeded from any Dislike of Episcopacy If this Assembly petitioning thus for Bishops believed the divine and indispensible institution of Parity If both Calderwood and Petrie acted not as became Cautious Pretbyterian Historians the One by giving us None the other by giving us only a Minced account of this Petition Well! By this time I think I have not intirely disappointed my Reader I think I have made it competently appear That the Agreement at Leith was fairly and frequently allowed approven and insisted on by not a â—ew subsequent General Assemblies I could adduce some Acts more of the next Ass which met at Eden March 7. 1575. But I think I have already made good my Undertaking and therefore I shall insist no further on this point Only One thing I must add further It is this After the most impartial narrow and attentive Search I could make I have not found all this while viz. from the first publick Establishment of the Reformed Religion in Scotland Anno 1560. so much as One Indication of either publick or private Dislike to Prelacy But that it constantly and uninterruptedly prevailed and all persons chearfully as well as quietly submitted to it till the year 1575. when it was first called in Question And here I might fairly shut up this long and perhaps nauseous Discourse upon the Second Enquiry which I proposed For whatever Men our Reformers were whatever their other principles might be I think I have made it plain that they were not for the Divine Right of Parity or the Vnlawfulness of the Superiority of any Office in the Church above Presbyters No such principle was prosessed or insisted on or offered to be reduced to practice by them Before At or full fifteen years After the publick Establishment of the Reformation And if this may not pass for sufficient proof of the truth of my Resolution of the Enquiry I know not what may However because THE SECOND thing I promised to shew tho not precisely necessary to my main design may yet be so far useful as to bring considerably more of Light to it and withal give the world a prospect of the Rise and Progress of Presbytery in Scotland I shall endeavour to make good my Undertaking which was that after Episcopacy was question'd it was not easily overturn'd Its Adversaries met with much Resistance and Opposition in their Endeavors to subvert it I shall study brevity as much as the weight of the matter will allow me In short then take it thus Master Andrew Melvil after some years spent at Geneva returned to Scotland in Iuly 1574. He had lived in that City under the influences of Theodore Beza the true parent of Presbytery He was a Man by Nature fierce and fiery confident and peremptory peevish and ungovernable Education in him had not sweetned Nature but Nature had sowred Education and both conspiring together had trickt him up into a true Original a piece compounded of pride and petulance of jeer and jangle of Satyr and Sarcasm of venome and vehemence He hated the Crown as much as the Mitre the Scepter as much as the Crosier and could have made as bold with the Purple as with the Rochet His prime Talent was Lampooning and writing Anti-tami-Cami-Categorias's In a word He was the very Archetypal Bitter Beard of the Party This Man thus accoutred was scarcely warm at home when he began to disseminate his sentiments insinuate them into others and make a party against Prelacy and for the Genevian Model For this I need not depend on Spotswoods Authority tho he asserts it plainly I have a more Authentick Author for it if more Authentick can be I have Melvil himself for it in a Letter to Beza dated Novem. 13. 1579. to be found both in Petrie and in the Pamphlet called Vindiciae Philadelphi from which Petrie had it of which Letter the very first words are we have not ceased these five years to fight against Pseudepiscopacy c. Now reckon five years backward from Novem. 1579. and you stand at November 1574. whereby we find that within three or four Months after his arrival the Plot was begun tho' it was near to a year thereafter before it came above-board Having thus projected his work and formed his party the next care was to get one to Table it fairly He himself was but lately come home he was much a Stranger in the Country having been ten years abroad He had been but at very few General Assemblies if at any his influence was but green and budding his Authority but young and tender It was not fit for him amongst his First Appearances to propose so great ane Innovation And it seems the Thinking Men of his Party however resolutely they might promise to back the Motion when once fairly Tabled were yet a little shy to be the first Proposers So it fell to the share of one who at that time was none of the greatest Statesmen Iohn Durie one of the Ministers of Edenburgh was the person as Spotswood describes him A sound hearted Man far from all Dissimulation open professing what he thought earnest and zealous in his Cause whatever it was but too too credulous and easily to be imposed on However that I may do him as much justice as
forced to return to England Mr. Henry Kellegrew succeeding in his stead in Scotland that this Killegrew at a private meeting told himself plainly that he was come to Scotland with a Commission contrary to his inclinations which was to encourage Faction c. Thus practiced Queen Elizabeth and such were her Arts and influences in Scotland before she had the opportunity of improving the Presbyterian humour to her purposes And can it be imagined she would not encourage it when once it got sooting Certainly she understood it better than so The Sect had set up a Presbytery at Wandsworth in Surrey in the year 1572 four years before Morton made this Proposition seven years before a Presbytery was so much as heard of in Scotland No doubt she knew the Spirit well enough and how apt and well suited it was for keeping a State in disorder and trouble Nay I have heard from knowing Persons that to this very day the Treasury Books of England if I remember right sure I am some English record or other bear the Names of such Scottish Noblemen and Ministers as were that Queens Pensioners and what allowances they got for their Services in fostering and cherishing seditions and confusions in their Native Countrey From this sample I think it is easy to collect at least that it is highly probable that Queen Elizabeth was very willing that the Presbyterian humour should be encouraged in Scotland Let us try 2. If Morton depended so much on her as may make it credible that he was subservient to her Designs in this Politick And here the work is easy For he was her very Creature he stood by her and he stood for her Randolf and he were still in one bottom The whole Countrey was abused by Randolf and Morton Morton and Randolf contrived the Parliament 1571. Mentioned before When Lennox the Regent was killed Randolf was earnest to have Morton succeed him Randolf had no Credit but with Morton Killegrew told Sir James Melvil at the Private Meeting mentioned before That the Queen of England and her Council built their course neither on the late Regent Lennox nor the present Mar but intirely on the Earl of Morton as only true to their interests Morton after Mar's death was made Regent England helping it with all their Might And again in that same page Sir Iames tells that those who were in the Castle of Edenburgh and stood for Queen Mary's Title were so sensible of all this that when Morton sent the same Sir Iames to propose ane accommodation to them He found it very hard to bring on ane Agreement between them and Morton for the evil opinion that was then conceived of him and the hurtful marks they supposed by proofs and appearances that he would shoot at being by Nature Covetous and too great with England And to make all this plainer yet Sir Iames tells us that Morton entertaind a Secret Grudge against his Pupil the Young King He was ever jealous that the King would be his Ruine And England gave greater Assistances to Morton than to any former Regents for they believed he aim'd at the same mark with themselves viz. to intricate the Kings affairs out of old jealousies between the Stuarts and the Douglases Now Let all these things be laid together and then let the judicious consider if it is not more than probable That as England had a main hand in the advancement of our Reformation so it was not wanting to contribute for the encouragement of Presbytery also and that Morton playing England's game which was so much interwâ—â—eâ— with his own made this ill favoured Proposition to this Gen. Ass. But however this was â—lâ—â—her he had such a Plot or not It is cleaâ— that his making this proposition had all the effects he could have projected by being on such a Plot. For No sooner had he made this Proposition than it was greedily entertain'd It Answered the Melvilian wishes and it was easy for them to find colourable Topicks for obtaining the consent of the rest of the Assembly For most part of them were ready to acknowledge that there were Defects and things to be mended in the Agreement at Leith And it had been received by the General Assembly in August 1572. for ane Interim only The revising of that Agreement might end some Controversies and the Regent having made this Proposition it was not to be doubted but he would Ratify what they should Unanimously agree to c. These and the like Arguments I say might 't is clear some Arguments did prevail with the Assembly to entertain the Proposition For A commission was forthwith drawn to nineteen or twenty Persons to Compose a Second Book of Discipline a step by which at that time the Presbyterian got a wonderful advantage over the other Party For not only were Melvil and Lawson the two first Rate Presbyterians nominated amongst these Commissioners But they had their business much prâ—meditated They had spent much thinking about it and it is not to be doubted they had Mr. Beza bespoken to provide them with all the Assistance he and his Colleagues at Geneva could afford them Whereas the rest were Generally very ignorant in Controversies of that Nature They had all alongst before that imployed themselves mainly in the Popish Controversies and had not troubled their heads much about the Niceties of Government They had taken the Ancient Government so far at least as it subsisted by imparity upon trust as they found it had been Practiced in all ages of the Church perceiving a great deal of Order and Beauty in it and nothing that naturally tended to have a bad influence on either the principles or the life of serious Christianity And with that they were satisfied Indeed even the best of them seem to have had very little skill in the true fountains whence the solid subsistence of the Episcopal Order was to be derived The Scriptures I mean not as Glossed by the Private Spirit of every Modern Novelist but as interpreted and understood by the First ages as sensed by the constant and universal practice of Genuine Primitive and Catholick Antiquity This charge of Ignorance in the Controversies about the Government of the Church which I have brought against the Scottish Clergy in these times will certainly leave a blot upon my self if I cannot prove it But if I can prove it it is clear it is of considerable importance in the present disquisition and helps much for coming by a just comprehension to understand how Presbytery was introduced into Scotland And therefore I must again beg my Readers patience till I adduce some evidences for it And First The truth of this charge may be obviously collected from the whole train of their proceedings and management about the Government of the Church from the very first Establishment of the Reformation For however they Established a Government which clearly subsisted by imparity as I
Schism which then prevailed there as foreseeing that Episcopacy might readily be deem'd a remedy against so great ane evil joyn'd Soâ—thenes with himself in the Inscription of the Epistle that by his own example he might teach how much that Princeliness was to be avoided in Ecclesiastical Conventions seeing the Apostles themselves who are owned to have been next to Christ first in order and supreme in degree did yet Exercise their power by the Rules of Parity Who will not at first sight think this a pretty odd fetch But to go on he further affirms That Episcopacy is so far from being a proper remedy against Schism that it has produced many Grievous Schisms which had never been but for that Humane Invention That the Papacy was the fruit of Episcopacy That the Council of Nice by making that Canon about the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that the Ancient customes should continue c cleared the way for the Roman Papacy which was then advancing apace And founded a Throne for that Whore that sits upon the seven Mountains That the Primitive Churches were in a flourishing condition so long as their Governours continued to Act in Parity And had not yeilded to Prelacy And yet he had granted before That humane Episcopacy as he calls it was in vogue in Ignatius his time c. So that I think they could not flourish much having so short a time to flourish in These fewâ— of many such learned Propositions I have collected out of that Book which was so successful at that time in furthering and advancing the Presbyterian Principles in Scotland And could they be a learned Clergy Could they be great Masters at Antiquity and Ecclesiastical History who swallowed down these Propositions or were imposed on by the Book that contain'd them 'T is true this Book came not to Scotland till the end of the year 1577 or the beginning of 1578. But I thought it pardonable to anticipate so far as now to give this account of it considering how proper it was for my present purpose We shall have occasion to take further notice of it afterward Thus I think I have made it appear how advantageous Morton's Proposition was to the Presbyterian party They had occasion by it to fall upon forming a New Scheme of Church Governmet and Polity They were as well prepared as they could be for such a nick and they had a set of people to deal with who might easily be worsted in these Controversies However it seems the common principles of Politicks which God and Nature have made if not inseparable parts at least ordinary concomitants of sound and solid reason did sometimes make their appearances amongst them For that there have been Disputations and Contests and that some at least of the many propositions contained in the Second Book of Discipline have been debated and tossed is evident from the many Conferences were about it and the long time was spent before it was perfected and got its finishing stroke from a General Assembly as we shall find in our progress Proceed we now in our deduction Tho' the Presbyterian Faction had gain'd this advantage in the Assembly 1576 that they had allowance to draw a new Scheme of Polity to which they could not but apply themselves very chearfully yet it seems they were so much humbled by the Repulses they had got as to the main Question viz. the Lawfulness of Episcopacy that they thought it not expedient to try the next Assembly with it directly as they had done unsuccessfully twice before But to wait a little till their party should be stronger and in the mean time to content themselves with such indirect blows as they could conveniently give it such I say their deliberations seem to have been at the next Assembly which was holden at Edenburgh Octob 24. 1576. For not so much as one word in that Assembly concerning the Lawfulness or Unlawfulness of Prelacy either Simply and in it self Or Complexely as then in use in Scotland 'T is true Certain â—reâ—hren says the MS. some Brethren says Calderwood some says Petrie without Question the Melvilians proposed that now that Mr. Patrick Adamson was nominated for the Archbishoprick of St. Andrews He might be tryed as to his sufficiency for such a station according to ane Act made in March 1575. But it seems the major part of the Assembly have not been for it for it was not done as we shall find afterward Nay another Act was fairly dispenced with by this Assembly in favour of Boyd Archbishop of Glasgow For being required to give his answer if he would take the Charge of a particular Flock according to the Act made in April before He Answered That he had entered to his Bishoprick according to the Agreement at Leith which was to stand in force during the Kings Minority or till a Parliament should determine otherwise That he had given his Oath to the Kings Majesty in things appertaining to his Highness That he was affraid he might incur the Guilt of Perjury and be called in question by the King for changing a member of state if he should change any thing belonging to the Order Manner Priviledges or Power of his Bishoprick That therefore he could not bind himself to a particular Flock nor prejudge the power of Iurisdiction which he had received with his Bishoprick c. Thus he answered I say and the Assembly at that time satisfied themselves so far with this answer that they pressed him no further but referred the matter to the next Assembly as even both Calderwood and Petrie acknowledge A fair evidence that in this Assembly the Presbyterian party was the weaker However One indirect step they gain'd in this Assembly also By the First Book of Discipline Hedd 9. It was appointed that the Country Ministers and Readers should meet upon a certain day of the week in such Towns within six miles distance as had Schools and to which there was repair of Learned men to exercise themselves in the Interpretation of Scripture in imitation of the practice in use among the Corinthians mentioned 1 Cor. 14.29 These Meetings it seems had been much neglected and disfrequented in most places It was therefore enacted by this Assembly That all Ministers within eight miles c. should resort to the place of exercise each day of exercise c. This I say was useful for the Presbyterian designs For these Meetings were afterwards turn'd into Presbyteries as we shall find when we come to the year 1579. And so 't is very like the motion for reviving them was made by those of the Faction For no man can deny that they have still had enough of Draught in their Politicks The next Assembly was holden April 1. Anno 1577. No direct progress made now neither as to the main Question And only these indirect ones 1. The Archbishop of Glasgow was obliged to take the charge of a particular Flock if we
the Meeting of the Four Kings against the Five or of the Five against the Four mentioned in the 14 th Chapter of the Book of Genesis For the Meetings of these Kings were before our Presbyteries I think in order of time And these Meetings of these Kings were as much like our present Presbyteries as those Meetings were which were appointed at the Reformation for the inteâ—pretation of Scripture So that even Calderwood himself was but triâ—ling when he said so But triâ—ling is one thing and impudent founding of false History upon another Mans trifling is another But enough of this Author at present we shall have further occasions of meeting with him This Assembly was also earnest with the King that the Book of Policy might be farther considered and that farther Conference might be had about it That the Heads not agreed about might be compromised some way or other But the King it seems listned not For they were at it again in their next Assembly And now that I have so frequently mentioned this Second Book of Discipline and shall not have occasion to proceed much further in this wearisome Deduction Before I leave it I shall only say this much more about it As much stress as the Presbyterian party laid on it afterwards and continue still to lay on it as if it were so very exact a Systeme of Ecclesiastical Polity yet at the beginning the Compilers of it had no such Confident sentiments about it For if we may believe Spotswood and herein he is not contradicted by any Presbyterian Historian when Master David Lindesay Mr. Iames Lawson and Mr. Robert Pont were sent by the Assembly to present it to the Regent Morton in the end of the year 1577 They intreated his Grace to receive the Articles presented to him and if any of them did seem not agreeable to reason to vouchsafe Audience to the Brethren whom the Assembly had named to attend Not that they thought it a work complete to which nothing might be added or from which nothing might be diminished for as God should reveal further unto them they should be willing to help and renew the same Now upon this Testimony I found this Question Whither the Compilers of the Second Book of Discipline could in reason have been earnest that this Book which they acknowledged not to be a work so complete as that nothing could be added to it or taken from it should have been confirmed by ane Oath and sworn to as ane Vnalterable Rule of Policy Are they not injurious to them who make them capable of such a bare faced absurdity Indeed whatever our present Presbyterians say and with how great assurance soever they talk to this purpose this is a Demonstration that the compilers of it never intended nay could not intend that it should be sworn to in the Negative Confession That it was not sworn to in that Confession I think I could prove with as much evidence as the nature of the thing is capable of if it were needful to my present purpose But not being that I shall only give this further Demonstration which comes in here naturally enough now that we have mentioned this Book so often The Negative Confession was sworn to and subscribed by the King and his Council upon the 28. of Ianuary 1580 1. Upon the second of March thereafter the King gave out a Proclamation ordering all the subjects to subscribe it But the King had never approven never owned but on the contrary had constantly rejected the Second Book of Discipline Nay it was not Ratiâ—ied got not its finishing stroke from the General Assembly it self till towards the end of April in that year 1581. By necessary consequence I think it was not sworn to in the Negative Confession And thus I leave it Proceed we now to the next Assembly It met at Dundee upon the twelfth of Iuly 1580. full twenty years after the Reformation For the Parliament which Established the Reformation as the Presbyterian Historians are earnest to have it had its first Meeting on the tenth of Iuly 1560. This this was the Assembly which after so many fencings and strugglings gave the deadly Thrust to Episcopacy I shall transcribe its Act word for word from Calderwood who has exactly enough taken it from the MS. and both Spotswood and Petrie agree It is this Forasmuch as the Office of a Bishop as it is now used and commonly taken within this Realm hath no sure Warrant Authority nor good Ground out of the Book and Scriptures of God but is brought in by the Folly and Corruptions of mens invention to the great overthrow of the true Kirk of God The whole Assembly in one voice after Liberty given to all men to Reason in the matter none oppening themselves in defence of the said pretended Office Findeth and Declareth the same pretended Office Vsed and Termed as is abovesaid Vnlawful in the self as having neither Fundament Ground nor Warrant in the word of God And Ordaineth that all such Persons as brook or hereafter shall brook the said Office be charged simpliciter to dimit quite and leave off the Samine as ane Office whereunto they are not called by God and sicklike to desist and cease from preaching Ministration of the Sacraments or using any way the Office of Pastors while they receive de novo Admission from the General Assembly under the pain of Excommunication to be used against them Wherein if they be found Disobedient or Contraveen this Act in any point The sentence of Excommunication after due admonition to be execute against them This is the Act. Perhaps it were no very great difficulty to impugn the Infallibility of this true blue Assembly and to expose the boldness the folly the iniquity the preposterous zeal which are conspicious in this Act Nay yet after all this to shew that the Zealots for Parity had not arrived at that height of Effrontery as to Condemn Prelacy as simply and in it self Unlawful But by this time I think I have performed my promise and made it appear that it was no easy task to Abolish Episcopacy and Introduce Presbytery to turn down Prelacy and set up Parity in the Government of the Church when it was first attempted in Scotland And therefore I shall stop here and bring this long Disquisition upon the Second Enquiry to a Conclusion after I have Recapitulated and represented in one intire view what I have at so great length deduced I have made it appear I think That no such Article was believed professed or maintained by the body of any Reformed or Reforming Church or by any Eminent and Famous Divine in any Reformed or Reforming Church while our Church was a Reforming No such Article I say as that of the Divine and indispensible Institution of Parity and the Vnlawfulness of Prelacy or Imparity amongst the Governours of the Church I have made it appear that there is no reason to believe that our
endure the Tryal of their own Test. And this brings me to Enquire whither they have stuck so precisely by the principles of our Reformers that they are in Bona Fide to insist on such a Topick And I think they will not be found to be so if I can make it appear that they have Notoriously deserted the principles of our Reformers I. In the Faith II. In the Worship III. In the Discipline And IV. In the Government of the Church I. I say they have forsaken our Reformers as to the Faith of the Church Our Reformers digested a Confession of Faith Anno 1560. They got it Ratifyed in Parliament that same year It was again Ratifyed Anno 1567. and in many subsequent Parliaments It continued still to be the publick Authorized Standard of the Faith of this National Church for more than eighty years Our Reformers design'd it to be a perpetual and unalterable Standard of the Faith of this National Church for ever When the Barons and Ministers gave in their Petition to the Parliament for ane Establishment of the Reformation Anno 1560. They were called upon and Commandment given unto them to draw into plain and several Heads the sum of that Doctrine which they would maintain and would desire the Parliament to Establish as wholesome true and only necessary to be believed and to be received within the Realm And they willingly accepted the Command and within four days presented the Confession which was Ratified and that its Establishment might pass with the greater solemnity and formality of Law The Earl Marshal protested that it might never be altered Yet now Our Presbyterian Brethren have set up a quite different Standard of Faith namely the Westminster Confession and have got it now Ratifyed by this current Parliament Anno 1690. it was never before Ratified by Act of Parliament I call it a quite different Standard of Faith Indeed whosoever diligently compares both Confessions shall readily find it such He shall not only find many things kept out of the Westminster Confession which are in the Confession of our Reformers and many things put in the Westminster Confession which were not in the Confession of our Reformers and many things nicely minutely precisely and peremptorily determined and that in the most Mysterious matters in the Westminster Confession which our Reformers thought fit as was indeed proper to express in very General and Accommodable Terms But he shall meet with not a few plain evident and irreconcileable Contradictions And now by this present Parliament in its Last Session particularly upon the twelfth day of Iune Anno 1693 it is statuted and ordained That no Person be admitted or continued for hereafter to be a Minister or Preacher within this Church unless he subscribe the Westminster Confession declaring it to be the Confession of his Faith and that he owns the Doctrine therein contained to be the true Doctrine to which he will constantly adhere And by unavoidable consequence he is bound to subscribe to and own God knows how many propositions not only not required nor professed by our Reformers but directly contrary to their Faith and principles And now let the world judge if our Presbyterian Brethren are the Successors of our Reformers in point of Faith II. They have forsaken them yet more in the point of Worship and here a vast field opens For to this head I reduce artificially or inartificially is no great matter if I adduce nothing but wherein our Brethren have deserted our Reformers the publick Prayers the publick Praises the publick Preaching of the word the administration of the Sacraments c. with all their Ceremonies Solemnities and Circumstances c. Generally whatever uses to be comprehended in Liturgies 1. In the General our Reformers were far from Condemning Liturgies or Set-Forms in the publick Offices of the Church There 's nothing more plain than that they preferred publick Composures to these that were private Composures digested by the publick Spirit of the Church to Composures digested by the private Spirit of particular Ministers and Premeditated and well digested Composures tho' performed by private persons to the too frequently Rash indigested incomposed performances of the Extemporary Gift They preferred Offices which were the productions of grave sedate well pondered thoughts to Offices which were mostly the productions of Animal Heat and warmth of Fancy Iohn Knox himself one who had as much Fire in his temper and was as much inclined to have given scope to the Extemporary Spirit I am apt to think as any of our Reformers had even a set form of Grace or Thanksgiving after meat he had a set-form of Prayer for the publick after Sermon and he had set-forms of Prayers read every day in his Family In conformity to this principle ouâ— Reformers for seven years together used the Liturgy of the Church of England as I have fully proven When by the importunity and perswasions of Iohn Knox principally I am sure if not only they resolved to part with the English Liturgy they continued still as far as ever from Condemning Liturgies They did not lay it aside to take up none They choosed another to succeed it they choosed that which went then generally under the name of the Order of Geneva or the Book of Common Order Since under the name of Knox's Liturgie or the Old Scottish Liturgie This Liturgie continued in use not only all the time the Government of the Church subsisted by Imparity after the Reformation But even for many Decads of years after the Presbyterian Spirit and Party turn'd prevalent It was so universally received and used and in so good esteem that when it was moved by some in the Assembly holden at Burnt-Island in March Anno 1601. That there were sundry Prayers in it which were not convenient for these times and a change was desirable the Assembly rejected the motion and Thought good that the Prayers already contained in the Book should neither be altered nor deleted But if any Brother would have any other Prayers added as more proper for the times they should first present them to be tryed and allowed by the General Assembly Here indeed was caution and concern about the publick worship worthy of a General Assembly Nay The First-Rate Presbyterians themselves used the Book as punctually as any other People When Mr. Robert Bruce of whose zeal for the good cause no Man I think can doubt was relegated to Innerness Anno 1605. He remained there four years Teaching every Sabbath before noon and every Wednesday And exercised at the Reading of the Prayers every other night And Master Iohn Strimgeour another prime Champion for the cause when he appeared before the High Commission March 1. Anno 1620 and was challenged for not putting in practice the five Articles of Perth Particularly for not Ministering the Eucharist to the People on their knees answered there is no warrantable form directed or approven by the Kirk besides that
First Book of Discipline Head 9. We think necessary that every Church have a Bible in English and that the People conveen to hear the Scriptures Read and Interpreted that by frequent Reading and Hearing the gross ignorance of the People may be removed And we judge it most expedient that the Scriptures be read in order that is that some one Book of the Old and New Testament be begun and followed forth to the end For a good many years after the Reformation there was ane order of men called Readers who supplyed the want of Ministers in many Parishes Their Office was to Read the Scriptures and the Common Prayers The Scriptures continued to be Read in Churches for more than eighty years after the Reformation In many Parishes the old Bibles are still extant from which the Scriptures were Read Even the Directory it self introduced not before the year 1645. appointed the Scriptures to be Read publickly in Churches one Chapter out of each Testament at least every Sunday before Sermon as being part of the publick worship of God and one meanâ— Sanctified by him for the Edifying of his People Yet now what a Scandal would it be to have the Scriptures Read in the Presbyterian Churches The last days Sermons taken from the mouth of the powerful Preacher by the inspired singers of Godly George or Gracious Barbara in some Churches of no mean Note have been Deem'd more Edifying than the Divine Oracles The Scriptures must not be touched but by the Man of God who can interpret them And he must Read no more than he is just then to interpret What shall I say Let Protestant Divines Cant as they please about the Perspicuity of the Scriptures 't is a dangerous thing to have them Read publickly without Orthodox Glosses to keep them close and true to the principles of the Godly And who knows but it might be expedient to wrap them up again in the unknown tongue But enough of this 2. As for Sermons c. The First Book of Discipline gives us the sentiment of our Reformers thus The Sunday in all Towns must precisely be observed before and after noon before noon the word must be Preached Sacraments Administred c. After noon the Catechism must be taught and the young Children examined thereupon in audience of all the People This continued the manner of the Church of Scotland for full twenty years after the Reformation For I find no mention of afternoons Sermons till the year 1580 that it was enacted by that same General Assembly which Condemned Episcopacy That all Pastors or Ministers should Diligently travel with their Flocks to conveen unto Sermon after noon on Sunday Both they that are in Landward and in Burgh as they will answer unto God The whole Kingdom knows Lectures before the forenoons Sermon were not introduced till the days of the Covenant and Directory Yet now a mighty stress is laid upon them and I my self have been told that they were one good Reason for forsaking the Episcopal Communion where they were not used and going over to the Presbyterians where they were to be had I am not to condemn a diligent instruction of the People But to speak freely I am very much perswaded the Method of our Reformers in having but one Sermon and Catechising after noon was every way as effectual for Instructing the People in the substantial knowledge of our Holy Religion and pressing the practice of it as any method has been in use since Much more might be said on this subject But from what I have said 't is plain there is a great Dissimilitude between our Modern Presbyterian and our Reformers even in this point and that is enough for my purpose 4. They have as little stuck by the Pattern of our Reformers in the Office of Praise Our Reformers beside the Psalms of David had and used several other Hymns in Metre They had the Ten Commandments the Lords Prayer the Creed Veni Creator the humble suit of a sinner the Lamentation of a sinner the Complaint of a sinner the Magnificat the Nunc Dimittis c. They never used to conclude their Psalms without some Christian Doxology The Gloria Patri was most generally used In the old Psalm Book it is turn'd into all the different kinds of Measures into which the Psalms of David are put that it might still succeed in the conclusion without changing the Tune It was so generally used that as Doctor Burnet in his Second Conference tells us even a Presbyterian General took it in very ill part when it begun to be disused Yet now nothing in use with our present Presbyterians but the Psalms of David and these too for the most part without Discrimination The Gloria Patri recovered from Desuetude at the last Restitution of Episcopacy and generally used in the Episcopal Assemblies these thirty years past was a Mighty Scandal to them So great that even such as came to Church hang'd their Heads and sate silent generally when it came to that part of the Office Having mentioned Doctor Burnet's Conferences I will transcribe his whole Period because some other things than the Gloria Patri are concerned in it When some Designers says he for popularity in the Western Parts of that Kirk did begin to disuse the Lord Prayer in worship and the singing the conclusion or Doxologie after the Psalm and the Ministers kneeling for Private Devotion when he entered the Pulpit the General Assembly took this in very ill part And in the Letter they wrote to the Presbyteries complained sadly of a Spirit of Innovation was beginning to get into the Kirk and to throw these Laudible practices out of it mentioning the three I named which are commanded still to be practiced and such as refused Obedience are appointed to be conferred with in order to the giving of them satisfaction And if they continued untractable the Presbyteries were to proceed against them as they should be answerable to the next General Assembly Thus he and this Letter he said he could produce Authentically Attested I doubt not he found it amongst his Uncle Waristown's Papers who was Scribe to the Rampant Assemblies from the year 1638 and downward I wish the Doctor had been at pains to have published more of them If he had imployed himself that way I am apt to think he had done his Native Countrey better service than he has done her Sister Kingdom by publishing Pastoral Letters to be used he knows how But even from what he has given us We may see how much the disusing of the Lords Prayer and the Doxologie is a late Innovation as well as a Recession from the Pattern of our Reformers And as for the decent and Laudable custom of kneeling for private Devotion used by the Minister when he entered the Pulpit It may be reckoned 5. Another Presbyterian late Recession It is certain it was used by our Reformers It is as certain it continued in use till
thing or another that I have pursued this matter so far But if they shall I pray God forgive them for they are injurious to me The principle which prompted me to represent these things was truly that of Fraternal Correption My main Design was to soften not irritate them not to exasperate them but to bring them to a more Manageable and Considering temper For I can and do sincerely protest that it is daily the earnest desire of my Soul that all men may be saved and come to the knowledge of the Truth I wish all Men Christians and I wish all Christians Christians Indeed In a special manner I wish our Presbyterian Brethren and we may yet be so much Honoured and blessed of God that in the sincerity of Brotherly kindness we may be all Vnited in one Holy Communion I wish we may all earnestly contend with all Christian forbearance fellow-feeling and Charity as becometh the members of the one Church whereof Christ Iesus is the Head to have the poor divided desolated Church of Scotland restored to that Peace Purity and Unity That Order Government and Stability which our Blessed Master hath instituted and commanded May Almighty God inspire us all with the Spirit of his Son that our hearts being purified by ane Humble and a Lively Faith the Faith that worketh by Love and our Lives Reformed according to the Laws and great purposes of our Holy Religion we may be all unanimously and dutifully disposed for so Great so Glorious so Desireable a Mercy And with this I end this Fifth Enquiry And now I think I have competently answered the ends of my undertaking which was to Examine this Article of our new Claim of Right and try its firmness and solidity I think I have comprized in these five Enquiries every thing that is material in it considered either in it self or as it supports the great alterations have been lately made in the Church of Scotland It might have been more narrowly sifted and sifted more narrowly it might have been found lyable to many more exceptions For instance 1. It may seem somewhat surprizing that such ane Article should have been put into a Scottish Claim of Right That it should have been made so seemingly Fundamental at least in the Constitution of the Scottish Monarchy which is so famous and has been so much renowned for its Antiquity Was ever such ane Article in a Scottish Claim of Right before No Man I think will say it was in the Original Contract made with Fergus the First if any Original Contract was made with him for if he was he was advanced to the Throne 330 years before our Saviours Birth if we may believe our Historians And I think it was not ane Article in the Original Contract then that the Christian Church should be so or so Governed Few men I think will say it was part of the Original Contract made with any Scottish King before the Reformation No man can produce any such Article in any Original Contract made with King Iames the Sixth King Charles the First or King Charles the Second unless it was the Solemn League and Covenant or the Act of the West Kirk It cannot be said that it was in any Original Contract made with King Iames the Seventh for all the Nation knows it was Declared by the Meeting of Estates that he forfeited his Right to the Crown for having made no Original Contracts These are all the real or pretended Kings we have had since the Reformation till the late Revolution Is not this Article therefore a New Fundamental added to the Constitution of the Ancient Scottish Monarchy This is all upon the supposition that it is truly a part of our new Claim of Right Tho' indeed 2. It may be made a Question whither it can be justly called a part of the Claim of Right It is very possible for one thing to be in another without being part of that other And one would think this Article lookt very unlike a part of a Claim of Right It seems not to run in the stile that is proper for Claims of Right 'T is certain it runs not in the stile of the rest of the Articles All the rest of the Articles tell us either what is contrary to Law or what are the undoubted Rights of the People This Article imports nothing like either the one or the other It only Declares Prelacy to be a Grievance c. This doth not say that it was contrary to Law For Laws themselves may be and actually were Declared to be Grievances by the Meeting of Estates in another paper And the Articles Declaring that Prelacy ought to be Abolished is ane Argument that it subsisted by Law and it was abolished as subsisting by Law for the Act which abolished it Repealed the Laws by which it subsisted Neither is Prelacy declared by the Article to be contrary to the Rights but only to the Inclinations of the People and I think it requires no Depth of Metaphysical precision to distinguish between Rights and Inclinations Indeed it seems obvious to any body that this Article had had its situation more properly and naturally amongst the Grievances which were digested in another paper and therefore I say being only praeternaturally and by apparent force thrust into the Claim of Right it may be made a Question whither its being so there be enough to make it part of the Claim of Right Or whither its nature should not be regarded rather than its post And it should be constructed to have no more weight than if it had been Regularly ranked in its own Category But such Questions are too hard for me and more proper for Lawyers to determine Neither shall I meddle 3. With many other obvious difficulties which must necessarily result from this Article being made truly a part of the Original Contract between King and People Such as its making the settlement of the Crown to depend not on Right of Inheritance or Proximity of Blood or any such Ancient Legal Solid Hereditary Title but on the every day changeable Inclinations of the People for these are the main fund of the Article and by the supposition the Article is intrinsecal and fundamental to the present settlement This I say and many more such which might be easily named seems a very considerable difficulty that might be urged on such a supposition But I shall not insist on them Farther 4. Besides all these Awkward exceptions whither it is or is not a part of the Claim of Right the stile of it might deserve to be considered Particularly that Phrase of Prelacy's being a great and insupportable Grievance and Trouble to the Nation 'T is true I have in my Third Enquiry guessed at its meaning But I do sincerely acknowledge it was but guessing and even yet I can do no more but guess about it Doth it not at first sight appear a little too big and swelling Is it not hard to find for it
the Youth are instructed c. And further In these Visitations he had power particularly to take account of what Books every Minister had and how he profited from time to time by them By Act of Assem at Edenburgh Iune 29. 1562. So 't is in the Mss. 15. He had power to depose Ministers that deserved it as appears from the First Book of Discipline Head 8. already cited And by the Assem at Edenburgh March 6. 1573. It is statuted that if any Minister reside not at the Church where his Charge is he shall be summoned before his Superintendent or Commissioner of the Province to whom the Assembly gives power to depose him c. So the Mss. and Potrie 16. He had power to translate Ministers from one Church to another as appears from the Act already cited Num. 4. and by ane Act of the Assembly at Edenburgh Iune 25. 1564. It is concluded that a Minister being once placed may not leave that Congregation without the Knowledge of the Flock and Consent of the Superintendent or whole Church i. e. a General Assembly So the Mss. had so Pet. These are all powers methinks scarcely reconcileable with ane opinion of the Divine Right of Parity but there are more and perhaps more considerable as yet to follow For 17. He had power to nominate Ministers to be Members of the General Assembly This is clearly asserted by the Acts of two General Assemblies The first at Edenburgh in Iune 1562. where it was ordained That no Minister leave his Flock for coming to the Assembly except he have complaints to make or be complained of or at least be warned thereto by the Superintendent So 't is in the Mss. and Spotswood cites it in his Refutatio Libelli c. The other Act was made by the Assembly holden at Edenburgh Iuly 1. 1563. which I find thus worded in the Mss. fairly agreeing with Spotswood Anent the Order hereafter to be used in General Assemblies They all voted and concluded as followeth viz. That if the Order already received pleases not by reason of the Plurality of Voices it be reformed in this manner First That none have place to vote except Superintendents Commissioners appointed for visiting the Kirks and Ministers brought with them presented as persons able to reason and having knowledge to judge with the aforenamed shall be joyned Commissioners of Burghs and Shires together with Commissioners of Vniversities Secondly Ministers and Commissioners shall be chosen at the Synodal Convention of the Diocess by Consent of the rest of the Ministers and Gentlemen that shall conveen at the said Synodal Convention c. From which it is plain that the Superintendent or Commissioner who was a temporary Superintendent nominated the Ministers they brought with them to the Assembly and that the rest of the Ministers c. had only a power of consenting and so it was thereafter practised unquestionably And if there were need of more Light it might be copiously received from the Lord Glamis his Letter to Mr. Beza Anno 1576. wherein he tells him that it had been the Custom ever since the Reformation that the Superintendents or Bishops still nominated the Ministers who met in the General Assemblies than which nothing can be more distinct and plain And this Testimony is the more considerable that it was not Glamis his own private deed but that which was the Result of a considerable Consult as we shall learn hereafter This was such a Branch of Episcopal power as mightily offended our Presbyterian Historians it seems for they have endeavoured to obscure it as much as they could Neither Calderwood nor Petrie mentions the first of these two Acts they mention the second indeed but how Calderwood huddles it up thus It was thought meet for eschewing of Confusion that this Order be followed That none have place nor power to vote except Superintendents Commissioners appointed for visiting of Kirks Ministers Commissioners of Burghs and Shires together with the Commissioners of Vniversities Ministers and Commissioners of Shires shall be chosen at the Synodal Convention of the Diocesses with consent of the rest of the Ministers and Gentlemen c. Leaving out intirely these words brought with them i. e. with the Superintendents and Commissioners of Kirks presented as persons able to reason and having knowledge to judge whereby the power of the Superintendents and Commissioners for visiting of Kirks is quite stifled and the whole sense of the Act perverted for what sense is it I pray to say that the Ministers were to be chosen by consent of the rest of the Ministers when you tell not who was to choose or who they were to whose Choice or Nomination the rest of the Ministers were to give that consent But it is no strange thing with this Author to let sense shift for it self if the good Cause cannot be otherwise served Neither is Petrie less unfaithful for he not only draws the Curtain over the whole power of the Superintendent c. so that you cannot have the least Glimpse of it from his account But he intermixes lies to boot only he stumbles not on Nonsense He accounts thus Because heretofore all Ministers that would come were admitted to vote not one word of this in the Narrative of the Act as it is in the Mss. or any other Historian and it is directly contrary to the Act 1562. already mentioned so that 't is plain it is a figment of his own And now the Number is increased and Commissioners of Shires were chosen in the Sheriff Court no other Historian or Record I have seen has one syllable of this either tho 't is probable enough it was so This Assembly makes ane Act of three parts concerning the Admission of Members 1. That none shall have place to vote but Superintendents Commissioners for visiting Churches Ministers and Commissioners of Shires and Burghs chosen as follows together with Commissioners of Vniversities 2. Ministers and Commissioners of Shires shall be chosen at the Synod of the Bounds by the Ministers and Gentlemen conveening there c. Not with the consent of the rest of the Ministers c. you see as Calderwood ridiculously had it but chosen by the Ministers c. without the least syllable that might import the Superintendents having any and far less the principal power in that Election This is clean work of it Thus I say these two Historians of the Party treat this notable branch of the power which our Reformers thought reasonable to confer on Superintendents but we shall not want occasions enough for admiring their ingenuity Return we now to our task 18. They had power to hold Diocesan Synods Ordains further they are the words of ane Act of the Ass. holden in Decem. 1562. as 't is both in the Mss. and Pet. That the Superintendents appoint Synodal Conventions twice in the year viz. in the months of April and October on such days of the said